ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rolling Stock Contracts

Steve Rotheram: What assessment his Department has made of the ability of British-based train manufacturers to win contracts for rolling stock.

Tom Blenkinsop: What assessment his Department has made of the ability of British-based train manufacturers to win contracts for rolling stock.

Philip Hammond: Since privatisation, Bombardier, as the only current UK-based train manufacturer, has supplied the majority of new trains across the UK main line rail and London underground networks, with a combined total of over 4,500 new carriages ordered since 1996. Going forward, there are a number of contracts that the Department would expect Bombardier to bid for, including the Crossrail project for the supply of around 600 carriages, and it is already a pre-qualified bidder. The tender for this contract is due to be issued in 2012. There are also potential future orders for the London Underground deep tube lines.

Steve Rotheram: I listened to what the Secretary of State had to say and, quite frankly, I could have predicted his response. Why is he not prepared to do anything to reconsider his disastrous decision to award the Thameslink contract to a company that intends to build these trains in Germany?

Philip Hammond: I sometimes get the feeling that I am talking to a brick wall on this subject. I have said it before and I will say it again: the criteria by which the bids were to be evaluated were laid down by the Government in 2008. The criteria have to be followed, although they might not be the criteria the hon. Gentleman would like. We have made a commitment to look at the way we specify the criteria in future public procurements, but on this project it is Labour’s mess and we are landed with it.
	Tom Blenkinsop: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman told the Transport Select Committee that there was an option to review or restart the Thameslink procurement process at any time during the year before naming the
	preferred bidder. Will he now admit that that was a terrible mistake, which has put at risk Bombardier, Britain’s last train manufacturer, and thousands of British jobs down the supply chain?

Philip Hammond: The only other option available to the Secretary of State—I have to repeat myself again—would have been to cancel the Thameslink procurement completely and abandon the project. That power exists, but there is no power to alter the terms under which the competition is conducted once it has begun. That was made very clear by the representative from the European Commission and by the academic lawyers who gave evidence to the Select Committee.

Nigel Mills: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will look to include socio-economic conditions in future procurement contracts and to give them sufficient weighting that the full economic impact of the contract can be taken into account?

Philip Hammond: The Prime Minister has agreed that the growth review should include a review of public procurement in the UK, and that work is now under way. We will look at what happens in other EU countries that are similarly constrained by EU procurement rules, and we will look at best procurement practice in large commercial companies to maintain long-term best value. We will certainly look at the opportunities provided by, and the appropriateness of, including socio-economic criteria, where appropriate.

Duncan Hames: I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to join me in congratulating Invensys, based in my Chippenham constituency, on winning a multi-million pound signalling contract on the Thameslink project. A world leader in train-signalling technology, Invensys has in the past experienced some difficulty in winning domestic contracts. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that recognition of UK engineering talent is more commonly the rule rather than the exception?

Philip Hammond: The general rule is that we would expect to evaluate bids for contracts on their merits. Companies such as Invensys and, indeed, Bombardier have won many contracts on their merits, but we will look at whether we should, in appropriate cases, include wider socio-economic issues and factors, which some other EU member states routinely do in their public procurement processes.

Louise Ellman: Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister made a speech about the importance of investment in infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State provide some examples of how that might lead to more opportunities for UK-based train manufacturing in the short term?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. We are sensitive to the pressures that the UK train manufacturing supply chain—not just Bombardier but the component suppliers—are under, and the Department is urgently looking at some other projects that might be advanced. In particular, the industry proposed a project to modify the cross-country Voyager train fleet so that it could run under electric power,
	which would provide—if Bombardier were to win the contract—a substantial piece of work for the crucial design department in Derby. That is at the heart of securing the future of that business.

Maria Eagle: Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister told the right hon. Gentleman to speed up delivery of Crossrail. Will he update the House on the new completion date for the project, which will, I presume, now be earlier than December 2019, the date to which he pushed it back after the election?

Philip Hammond: The Deputy Prime Minister did not tell me to speed up the Crossrail project. The thrust of his speech was the need to ensure that committed capital funds are spent on their intended profile. The requirements to keep demand in the economy mean that we must get those vital capital programmes spent on programme, and the Crossrail project is spending on programme and will deliver the completion of the project from 2016, with full running from 2019.

Maria Eagle: So the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong—there is no plan to bring forward projects and no plan for growth. May I ask the Transport Secretary about the procurement of trains for Crossrail? After his disastrous decision to award the Thameslink train contract to a company that will build the trains in Germany, putting at risk Britain’s train manufacturing industry, he has said that he is reviewing the Crossrail contract. As he has just confirmed that Crossrail is still being delivered on his slower timetable, rather than reviewing it for six months, why does he not scrap the process and start again, and this time ensure that Bombardier has a fair chance to secure the work. Finally—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we have the gist, and we are grateful.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Lady is all over the place. There is nothing to scrap in relation to the Crossrail rolling stock procurement programme, because we have not started that procurement yet. We announced that we will postpone the issue of the invitation to tender until the new year, in order that consideration be given to the findings of the growth review and how public procurement in this country can best support the strategic interests of the supply chain. The broader Crossrail project, involving a major infrastructure investment—the tunnels across London—is, as the hon. Lady and anyone who travels around London knows, already under way as is manifest in the large number of big holes in the ground.

Rail Travel

Simon Hart: What assessment he has made of recent trends in levels of rail travel.

Philip Hammond: Annual statistics for the year ending March 2011 published by the Office of Rail Regulation show that passenger travel rose during the year to reach an overall, all-time high of 33.6 billion passenger miles. The number of rail journeys has been rising steadily each year since privatisation with only one slight drop in the total during 2009. Since then the upward trend
	has resumed to reach a total of 1.4 billion journeys undertaken. Long-distance rail travel has nearly doubled since privatisation.

Simon Hart: Will the Secretary of State put some pressure on Network Rail about the state of their stations? Whitland station, in my constituency, is now in such a deplorable state that it works against people wanting to travel on rail and against attracting tourists to our area.

Philip Hammond: Management of stations is the responsibility of train operators. Under the revised franchise programme that the Minister of State has announced, we intend to transfer leasehold ownership of stations to the franchise train operator, so that it can have a more direct, hands-on involvement. However, I will look into the specific example about which my hon. Friend asks.

Denis MacShane: The Secretary of State’s extraordinary statement that rail travel is something for rich people could be made only by one of the southern millionaires in the Cabinet. If he came to Rotherham, he would see plenty of people who are not rich, but they are now being threatened with the ticket office at Rotherham station, which is being rebuilt, being taken away. May I put it to him that many of my constituents do not do computers and need help and aid? That ticket office at Rotherham station must stay.

Philip Hammond: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and I agree that there will be a need for assisted channels—

Denis MacShane: What are assisted channels?

Philip Hammond: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what assisted channels are. Even as the purchase of tickets, over time, is bound to become more computer based, as new technologies are deployed and more tickets are bought online, through mobile technology and so on, there will still be a need for an assisted channel, and we will ensure that there is one.

Julian Huppert: Price is clearly a major factor in determining how many people use the railways. The previous Government went for above-inflation increases each year, and we have argued for increases below inflation. The Government have gone for 3% above RPI. Does the Secretary of State accept that 8% increases in rail, and 7% increases in London transport, is simply too much for people to deal with.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman says “we”. I am not sure who the “we” is. We have decided that we will have to increase rail fares by 3% in real terms for the next three years in order to protect the major programme of investment in the rolling stock, electrification and new infrastructure that the country needs. It is a tough decision, but it is the right decision.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I ask the Secretary of State to face the House, as he is addressing us?

Heavy Goods Vehicles

Mark Lazarowicz: What assessment he has made of the potential road safety implications of increasing the maximum length of heavy goods vehicles.

Michael Penning: In March I published a feasibility study and impact assessment on longer semi-trailers, undertaken by consultants including the Transport Research Laboratory. The research, which is available in the Library, includes consideration of the potential road safety implications.

Mark Lazarowicz: Many streets in my constituency are already unsuitable for long heavy goods vehicles, and the thought of even longer vehicles trying to get down narrow city streets will horrify many people. As the Minister knows, blanket lorry bans are not possible in many urban areas, for all sorts of reasons. May I urge him to think again, and to reject the proposal to allow even longer lorries on to totally unsuitable streets in urban and rural areas?

Michael Penning: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but he should note that because the turning wheels of longer semi-trailers are at the back, their turning circles are much tighter than those of existing lorries. I know that because I used to drive heavy goods vehicles myself. However, I will look into the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and we will announce our proposals when the House reconvenes next month. Then at least the industry will know exactly where we are going.

Andrew Murrison: Has the Minister considered the environmental impact of very long vehicles, particularly in relation to small rural roads, and the safety implications for pedestrians and cyclists of elongated public service vehicles in the form of articulated buses?

Michael Penning: We have indeed considered the environmental impact of longer semi-trailers, and have concluded that there will be less pollution in the community. There will be fewer lorries, because the longer lorries will be able to carry more cargo than be carried now. We considered carefully whether longer semi-trailers posed a risk to cyclists in particular, and the risk is not there.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I know that the Minister is in some pain this morning owing to a tooth abscess, and I do not want to add to his discomfort, but people—motorists, cyclists and pedestrians—are frightened by heavy goods vehicles, and longer vehicles will cause even greater anxiety. Given the 40% cut in road safety funding and the results of the Department’s own consultation, which suggest that the number of casualties may be marginally higher if longer vehicles are introduced, will the Minister ensure that the road safety element features highly in his consideration? Surely it must be at the top of his agenda.

Michael Penning: It is very kind of my shadow opponent to worry about my abscess, but I promise him that the NHS dentist will look after it for me.
	We will carefully consider the road safety implications of longer semi-trailers, but we must sweat our assets better on the roads. We are not going to introduce heavier weights, and we are not going to introduce the mega-trucks whose introduction has been proposed to us. We will look carefully at the length of trailers to ensure that more products can be taken around the country with the same weight, the same fuel and fewer emissions.

Anne McIntosh: Surely the best way of improving road safety is to put all transport on to rail, but will my hon. Friend tell me how safety can be improved on roads such as the A64? What specific plans does he have in that regard?

Michael Penning: I shall have to write to my hon. Friend about the A64. As for moving more transport on to rail, the industry rightly says that trains often take goods to the rail hubs, and trucks—which will now be the longer semi-trailers—take them from there to the distribution centres and supermarkets. When the longer vehicles are introduced, there will be fewer traffic problems, fewer lorries and more rail transport, which is what we want.

Rail Investment

Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment he has made of the importance of the voice of the passenger to decisions about rail investment; and if he will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: The Government recognise the importance of passenger opinion to their decisions about rail investment. The National Passenger Survey produces a network-wide assessment of passenger views on rail travel, which is used to inform the refranchising process alongside franchise-specific consultations. Other work by Passenger Focus, the independent advocate for rail users, also provides valuable input to decision making.

Fiona Mactaggart: When I meet Slough’s rail commuters next Tuesday, they will tell me that they are fed up about the £170 increase in their fares next year, and fed up that three of the 10 most overcrowded trains in the country serve Slough. We are to have no new carriages, the Minister is dithering about whether we will be able to use Oyster cards—which will help to relieve the position—and Crossrail, although welcome, will slow down Slough’s service. What has the Minister to say to the commuters whom I am meeting on Tuesday?

Theresa Villiers: I recommend that the hon. Lady say that this Government are fully committed to a major investment programme for our railways, much of which will benefit her constituents, including electrification, the intercity express programme, the provision of new rolling stock in the future, and improving the overall reliability of the line for her constituents, with the bottleneck at Reading station being dealt with. We are taking the concerns of the hon. Lady’s constituents very seriously. We recognise the anxiety about rail fares, but we are determined to get the costs of the railways down so that we can give better value for money to passengers and taxpayers.

Andrea Leadsom: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the latest assessment of the High Speed 2 consultation that closed in July? Will she also reassure my constituents, all of whom are rail passengers, that every single one of their views will be taken into account?

Theresa Villiers: The Government take the process for designing the future of high-speed rail very seriously. All representations made to the consultation will be carefully considered and an announcement will be made later this year.

Rail Franchises

David Evennett: What recent discussions he has had on reform of rail franchising.

Theresa Villiers: The Secretary of State has held discussions that cover franchise reform in a number of meetings with rail passenger groups, local authorities, train operators. Network Rail and others.

David Evennett: I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that as well as encouraging investment the Government’s franchising policy must be focused on efficiency, which in the long run will ensure that inflation-busting fare increases become a thing of the past?

Theresa Villiers: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Our rail franchising reform has the dual purpose of promoting private sector investment and delivering better services to passengers and of reducing the cost of running the railways. As I said in answer to the previous question, that is part of the wider strategy of working with the rail industry to get costs down and provide better value for money for passengers.

Barry Sheerman: Talking about leaving messes that other people have to clear up, the privatisation of the railways has been a mess ever since it was introduced. May we address the issue of the franchise for the east coast line, as the commute to and from London that it provides for my constituents is a disgrace? When they want to travel cross-Pennine, they have to use trains that should be in the York railway museum.

Theresa Villiers: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the impact of privatisation. More people currently travel by rail than at any time since the 1920s, and reliability levels are high. I acknowledge that reliability on the east coast line should be better, however, and both East Coast and Network Rail are focused on that, as is my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). We do think that reliability needs to improve on the east coast line, but we also believe that, overall, privatisation of the railways has brought some tremendous benefits, including increasing passenger numbers.

John Leech: Will the Minister ensure that any changes to rail franchise specifications will not necessarily involve the loss of ticket offices at local stations?

Theresa Villiers: The Government will carefully consider the McNulty review recommendations, including in the context of the specifications we put in place for rail franchises. Many of the decisions about ticket offices are addressed in what is known as the ticketing settlement agreement, and we will also consider that. We need to get the balance right by modernising the system so that it reflects the fact that the many new ways of buying tickets—such as the increasing use of smarter ticketing and internet purchasing—will in future change what we require from ticket offices, while also ensuring that people have the right channels through which to buy tickets.

Concessionary Coach Travel

Huw Irranca-Davies: What impact assessment his Department undertook in relation to the decision to end concessionary coach travel for elderly and disabled people.

Caroline Nokes: What consultation he has had with coach operators on the effects of the withdrawal of the coach concessionary travel scheme.

Norman Baker: The decision to end Government funding for the half-price coach concession was announced as part of the 2010 spending review. The Government have corresponded with affected operators on the proposed change and my officials have held discussions with National Express—one of the operators affected by the phasing out of the concession. An impact assessment relating to the ending of the coach concession has been submitted to the Reducing Regulation Committee. The final assessment will be published on the Department’s website and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I suspect that he will have received, as I have, countless letters from constituents who see much more expensive coach travel coming down the line as a result of the scrapping of the scheme by October 2012. Am I right in my understanding that no public inquiry with disabled or older people’s groups has been carried out? If so, what justification can he have for scrapping the scheme without first consulting the most affected users?

Norman Baker: Of course we assessed the proposal as part of the spending review, and I mentioned the Reducing Regulation Committee assessment a moment ago. May I suggest that the position is not quite as apocalyptic as the hon. Gentleman makes out? A year ago, after the 2010 spending review announcement, National Express said:
	“We are already planning for the removal of the coach concessionary fares scheme in October 2011 and will announce new products aimed at the over 60s and disabled travellers in due course. We believe the financial impact of the scheme’s removal is manageable and will be mitigated by our own plans”.

Caroline Nokes: I thank the Minister for his comments. Many elderly and disabled people in my constituency have become reliant on coach travel because of its ease of use and cost-effectiveness. If this decision results in the withdrawal of some routes, what choice does he think those vulnerable groups in my constituency will be left with, given that train travel is acknowledged to be very expensive?

Norman Baker: First, we have retained the bus concession in its entirety when many thought that was vulnerable in the current financial circumstances—that has not been chopped in any way. Secondly, the senior citizen railcard continues to exist, and it enables those people to receive a significant discount on rail travel. Thirdly, as I have said, National Express, which is by far and away the largest coach provider, is intending to put its own scheme in place, and I am sure it will do that. I say that, first, because it makes commercial sense for
	National Express to do so and, secondly, because the profits on its coach division increased by 14% in the last six months.

Andrew Gwynne: This proposal beggars belief—only on planet Norman can this be a good idea. Does the Minister not understand that removing the concessionary coach fares—an entitlement for almost 12 million pensioners and an additional number of disabled people—will, as Age UK puts it, have a “devastating effect” on many people, who will struggle to afford their coach journeys in future? Does he not see that by cutting too far and too fast his approach is having an unfair impact on pensioners and disabled people, and increasing the chances of them being socially isolated?

Norman Baker: That was rather over the top, if I may say so. The fact is that National Express operated its own coach concession arrangements before 2003, and it indicated last year that it believes the situation is manageable and that it intends to introduce a further concession. As I said a moment ago, the profits of the UK coach division of National Express have increased by 14%. Indeed, the profits of the National Express Group—a very successful company—have risen by 26% in the first half of this year. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the public purse should subsidise the profits of National Express, that would be an odd position for the Labour party to take.

Cycling

Chris Skidmore: What recent steps he has taken to encourage cycling.

Norman Baker: The Government are strongly in favour of cycling, as we said in our coalition agreement. On 5 July, I announced the allocation of £155.5 million to 37 authorities to deliver packages of measures that support economic growth and cut carbon emissions, as part of the £560 million local sustainable transport fund—many of these include cycling. I will announce the remaining allocations in summer 2012. In addition, I have established a cycling forum, which met for the first time this week. We want to get more people cycling, more safely, more often.

Chris Skidmore: The Minister will undoubtedly be aware of the huge success that cycling city status has brought south Gloucestershire. Could he now seriously consider the North Fringe to Hengrove major scheme bid that his Department has received recently? The scheme will further enhance cycling provision and will boost economic growth.

Norman Baker: I agree that the initiatives in south Gloucestershire have been successful, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his inventiveness and ingenuity in including that question under this heading. He will understand that the project he mentions is subject to assessment under the development pool arrangements. A decision will be made later this year, but his support for the scheme is noted.

Lilian Greenwood: CTC reports that the biggest deterrent to cycling is fear of busy roads. What are the Government doing to improve
	driver training and put more emphasis on cyclists’ needs? How can the Minister ensure that dangerous or intimidating driving is made as unacceptable as drink driving?

Norman Baker: Dangerous and intimidating driving is already subject to police enforcement, but we are taking steps to ensure that drivers are aware of cyclists on the road. A Trixi mirror pilot has been approved for London, and it is now in place and showing good results. The Under-Secretary with responsibility for road safety is very aware of this issue and is looking at driving training for HGV drivers in particular.

Mr Speaker: We are better informed about Trixi mirrors and we are grateful to the Minister for that.

Rail Network (Sustainability)

Nicky Morgan: What steps he is taking to ensure the economic sustainability of the rail network.

Rehman Chishti: What steps he is taking to ensure the economic sustainability of the rail network.

Theresa Villiers: Despite the deficit, the Government are investing £18 billion in the railway, supporting projects such as Crossrail, Thameslink, electrification and extra carriages on crowded routes. We are also determined to get the cost of running the railways down, and we are putting together a reform package to deliver this which will draw on the report produced by Sir Roy McNulty.

Nicky Morgan: I thank the Minister for her reply. The Government have already announced improvements to the midland main line, which it is hoped will result in line speed improvements, but there is still a very strong business case for full electrification. What hope can she give me and many other MPs along the midland main line route that the Government will consider full electrification, particularly in the light of the HS2 route having being published so recently?

Theresa Villiers: I can say that, yes, we will be consider whether the midland main line can be electrified as part of the work in HS2 control period 5, but we will also have to consider competing projects such as the northern hub or the electrification of the trans-Pennine route.

Rehman Chishti: On train fares, may I ask the Minister for special consideration for commuters in Gillingham and Rainham and the south-east, which have had excessive RPI plus 3% increases since 2006? The Minister will know that commuters in the south-east have had excessive and unfair increases for that period.

Theresa Villiers: I well understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and he has lobbied hard on this issue. The fares are contributing to investments that have been made on the Southeastern franchise in the past and fares now and in the future will contribute to the major investment programme that the Government are delivering,
	but in the longer term it is vital that we get the cost of the railways down to respond to passenger concerns about value for money.

Bill Esterson: Elderly and disabled constituents of mine would like to access the rail network but are prevented from doing so by the poor station facilities. Merseytravel has had a budget cut of two thirds, which has caused delays to the installation of a lift at Formby station, to give one example. That lift is vital if elderly and disabled people are to be able to travel on the rail network at all. Will the Minister consider reversing that cut?

Theresa Villiers: I will certainly look into the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned and write to him about it. I emphasise that access for all funding is continuing under this Government and is part of a major programme of upgrades that we have committed to undertake, despite grappling with a deficit that is as serious as anything in our peacetime history.

Rail Projects

David Mowat: What plans he has to review the business case for (a) High Speed 2 and (b) Crossrail.

Philip Hammond: Economic cases for large projects are periodically refreshed—for example, to reflect the latest economic forecasts. A robust economic case for HS2 was prepared for the recent consultation, with a benefit-cost ratio of 1:2.6. An update will be published later this year. The latest update of the Crossrail economic case was published in July 2011, with a BCR of 1:1.97. I should make it clear that the economic case is only one of the criteria used in decision making for transport infrastructure projects.

David Mowat: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. As he made clear, the business case for HS2 is stronger than the business case for Crossrail. The HS2 business case gets even better if the link north of Birmingham is taken into account. Given that fact, will the Minister consider bringing forward the construction of HS2 in order to stimulate the economy in the same way as has been mooted for Crossrail?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the HS2 project. Let me give him an example to reinforce his point. At the time the decision was made to build the extension to the Jubilee line, the BCR was less than 1, but I do not think that many people would argue today that we could possibly do without the Jubilee line extension. The construction profile and overall project profile for HS2 are based on the requirement to obtain parliamentary and other statutory consents and the cash-flow limitations of the Treasury’s ability to fund a project on such a scale. Unfortunately, it will not be possible to accelerate it.

Clive Betts: I know the Secretary of State will be aware that there is widespread political and business support in my city, Sheffield, for HS2. Will he also consider how improving the connecting links to the wider city region could make the business case for HS2 even stronger?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I have said time and again that a major infrastructure project such as HS2 is not an alternative to routine investment in the rest of the rail network and that to get the maximum out of HS2 we will also need to improve the connectivity from the nodes on the HS2 railway to the surrounding areas.

Rolling Stock (Procurement)

Jonathan Ashworth: What recent assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of its procurement policy for rail rolling stock.

Philip Hammond: As stated at the Select Committee on Transport on 7 September, for all future Government-led procurements—not just those for rolling stock—the Prime Minister has asked the growth review to examine the degree to which the Government can set out the requirements and the evaluation criteria with a sharper focus on the UK’s strategic interest, including a review of public procurement practice and outcomes in other EU member states and a review of current private sector best practice. The results of those reviews will inform future Government-led procurements.

Jonathan Ashworth: I am sorry that the Secretary of State feels that he is talking to a brick wall when Members raise legitimate concerns about the impact on jobs of the Bombardier decision. I am concerned about the impact on Leicester, where many firms are part of the supply chain. What reassurance can he give those firms now that the majority of our trains will be built abroad?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to say that the majority of our trains will be built abroad. One contract has been awarded to Siemens, and those trains will be built in Germany. Other contracts are in the pipeline, and Bombardier remains a very strong bidder. It has demonstrated over the last 15 years its ability to win a majority of UK train orders. From 2014 we will have a second UK-based train builder, Hitachi, in the plant that it is establishing in Newton Aycliffe, with the creation of 600 new jobs.

Margot James: I very much welcome the review of how the Department implements the procurement rules. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no time like the present for a thorough review of how this country has, in the past, gold-plated EU directives and regulations?

Philip Hammond: I should emphasise to my hon. Friend that the review is not concerned simply with train procurement but is a review of public sector procurement across the board. It will look at what is happening elsewhere and whether there are things that we can do differently so that procurements initiated by this Government do not have the flaws that hon. Members are identifying in the Thameslink procurement initiated by the last Government.

Topical Questions

Mark Reckless: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Philip Hammond: Since I last answered Transport questions, the consultation on high-speed rail has closed. The Department has announced £155 million of investment from the first-round allocation of the local sustainable transport fund, concluded deals to put new carriages on key commuter rail routes, set out the next stages in the Department’s rail franchising programme and launched a consultation on proposals for new lane rental schemes to cut the number of rush-hour roadworks.

Mark Reckless: Many of my constituents who are not rich but were used as guinea pigs for RPI plus 3% by the last Government have no choice but to commute by coach, getting up at 5 or 6 am to get into London. Will Ministers welcome the statement by Southeastern yesterday that it will henceforth use the flex possibility to consider elasticities so that areas where people are not well off and where there is significant competition may see lower fare increases in future?

Philip Hammond: Absolutely. We are all in favour of competition. Train operators should note what is happening in the marketplace, and where coach operators are taking their business they should use the flexibility that they have to respond.

Alison McGovern: Yesterday’s unemployment figures were disastrous for Wirral and the wider Merseyside economy. Given that RPI is now over 5%, will the Secretary of State explain how his RPI plus 3% train fare hikes will help work pay for ordinary people?

Theresa Villiers: Merseyrail is on a different fares framework from the rest of the country—I think that it is on RPI. We all fully recognise the concern about rail fares. The decision on RPI plus 3% has been taken to enable us to deliver a massive programme of rail upgrades, which is essential if we are to deal with passenger concerns and promote vital economic growth.

Claire Perry: Last night I drove down to my constituency and, unusually, the motorway was very clear. However, it is often the case that there are accidents on both the M3 and the M4 and it seems to take an unfeasibly long time to get the motorway reopened afterwards. Will the Department do something about that?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend raises a very topical point. She may know that in August we had one of the longest ever post-accident closures on the M25 very close to my own constituency, as it happens, when the motorway was closed for more than 24 hours following an accident. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), has been in discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the police lead on traffic services. A working group is now operating between the Highways Agency and ACPO, which will be reporting before the end of the year. We have also allocated £3 million to
	invest in the latest laser scanners to allow the police to record traffic accident scenes more quickly and allow the clear-up of the motorway to progress more quickly.

Lisa Nandy: The Government are asking more disabled people to find work through the work capability assessment programme. Does the Minister understand that transport, and in particular cancelled station upgrades, slow replacement of rolling stock and rising prices are a significant barrier for many disabled people in Wigan and across the country? What action is he taking to address this?

Norman Baker: We are taking a good deal of action to help disabled passengers whom we want to have full access to the transport system. Plans are going ahead to ensure that rail vehicles and buses are fully accessible, we are also continuing with the access for all programme to upgrade railway stations, and I regularly meet disabled groups to ensure that our programmes and policies are fully in line with their wishes.

Tony Baldry: Can the House be given an update on yesterday’s interdepartmental meeting on the theft of metals and the review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964?

Norman Baker: I am grateful for that question because metal theft is an extremely serious issue for passengers on the rail network and for motorists who are now affected on motorways, and the coastguard service. This is a matter that we take very seriously, because of its impact on business apart from anything else. There was a very good meeting of Ministers from a number of Departments yesterday. We have a plan to ensure that we are using our existing powers as fully as possible, and to look at what other steps may be necessary to deal with this high level crime.

Nicholas Dakin: Businesses have been encouraged by the announcement of a Humber enterprise zone and the Government’s commitment to finding a sustainable solution to Humber bridge tolls. Will the Secretary of State give a green light to potential investors by announcing when the upgrade to the A160 will take place?

Michael Penning: I genuinely apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Because he was asking about the Humber bridge, I assumed that he was asking about tolls. I will write to him specifically on the A160 as soon as I return to the Department.

Rehman Chishti: Following the Government’s consultation on the future of the Dartford crossing, will the Minister consider extending the local person’s discount scheme to include my constituents and the wider Medway area?

Philip Hammond: I am happy to consider any representation that my hon. Friend wants to make, but our primary objective is to ensure that funds are available for an additional crossing in the future, and our approach to Dartford is to ensure that that can be affordably delivered.

Kelvin Hopkins: In awarding the Thameslink contract, did the Secretary of State take into account Siemens’ industrial relations record? Siemens’ global business strategy has been described as aggressively anti-union, and staff currently working for First Capital Connect on the existing Thameslink bid have not been reassured by the Government that their terms and conditions will be protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 should they transfer to Siemens. Will he reassure those workers and the House that TUPE will apply in such circumstances?

Philip Hammond: My understanding is that TUPE will apply in such circumstances. For the record, Siemens employs 16,000 people in this country, many—indeed, I think most—are represented by the Unite union, and my understanding from the inquiries that I have made is that relationships between the union that represents them and the company are extremely good.

Jake Berry: The extension of high-speed rail to Manchester will bring huge benefits to my constituents, both in terms of jobs and growth. Will the Minister reassure the House that this line will not stop at Birmingham but will come to Leeds and Manchester, and additionally will he confirm that if we are to have a proper integrated transport plan, we should look at a rail link between Rossendale and Manchester to complement it?

Philip Hammond: Ah, the sting in the tail! My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I understand the concern that some Members representing seats in the north-west, Yorkshire and places further north have about the fact that we have to progress this project in two separate stages through two separate hybrid Bills. I have made it clear on every occasion I possibly can that the Government are committed to the whole Y network project. The benefit-to-cost ratio is based on the whole Y network, and I will do whatever I can to build into the first hybrid Bill reassurance to people and businesses in Manchester, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the north east that we will indeed complete the full Y project.

Tom Greatrex: The Minister referred earlier to the access for all programme. Newton station in my constituency is in dire need of an upgrade to improve access. Will he speak to Transport Scotland to ensure that the station gets those improvements quickly?

Norman Baker: I am not familiar with that specific case, but I will happily look into it. I will discuss the matter with officials and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Jo Johnson: Daniel Upcraft and his fiancée Nicola were hit by a heavy lorry while queuing in traffic on the M25 last April. Daniel was left with very serious brain injuries and Nicola tragically lost her life. The driver of the lorry was found to have had undiagnosed sleep apnoea and the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case against him. Will the Minister please agree to meet Daniel’s mother, Carole, my constituent, who is running a campaign to raise awareness of the impact of sleep apnoea on drivers’ ability to maintain vigilance?

Michael Penning: It would be a pleasure to meet the family, and I praise the work they are doing. This tragic loss was the result of a medical condition that is very difficult to diagnose, and we need to do a lot of work prior to diagnosis so that people are not driving with this terrible illness.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Department for Transport carry out a full risk assessment before removing emergency towing vessels from the waters around the Hebrides and Orkney and Shetland?

Michael Penning: I met the hon. Gentleman recently to discuss this. We have made an assessment. The contract ends at the end of this month. I have worked closely with all local communities and the Scottish Government to try to find out whether there is more funding. We do not have the funding for it. The present contract, which was brought in by the previous Government, is a disaster for the taxpayer and the local community. I am still willing to look at other proposals, but they will have to be brought forward quickly.

Sheryll Murray: Would my right hon. Friend like to join me on one of the most beautiful and picturesque railway lines in the country, between Liskeard and Looe, to see for herself how our rural railways support coastal communities and the tourist industry?

Theresa Villiers: Yes, I would be delighted to.

Natascha Engel: Integrated transport authorities have effectively re-regulated buses in the larger metropolitan county areas, which has squeezed private bus companies and made the bus wars in rural areas particularly fierce. That is great for those who live on lucrative bus routes, but services to smaller rural villages have become so bad as to be non-existent in some places. What is the Minister doing to help people out in those smaller rural areas?

Norman Baker: Local decisions are a matter for local authorities, which are elected and are in the best position to make those decisions. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Competition Commission is examining the bus market and will report later this year. We will obviously give serious consideration to its recommendations.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Female Genital Mutilation

Jane Ellison: What assessment she has made of the likelihood that new guidelines on prosecution of cases of female genital mutilation will increase the prospects of securing a conviction.

Lynne Featherstone: Before answering that question, I would like to offer the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House for being unable to attend questions today; she is in the United States on ministerial business relating to counter-terrorism. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for
	Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who has responsibility for disabled people, and I will endeavour to field questions from the House.
	The Government are committed to eradicating female genital mutilation. The Crown Prosecution Service’s legal guidance, which was launched last week, is an important step in preventing this horrendous practice. We hope that it will raise awareness of the issue and help prosecutors bring perpetrators to justice.

Jane Ellison: I thank the Minister for that reply. The section of the new guidelines on reluctant victims focuses very much on the difficulties of obtaining evidence and gaining victim co-operation, but for years great expertise has been brought to bear in prosecuting child sexual abuse. Could not this expertise be brought to bear in the area of FGM?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful suggestion. It is a really important point, because I am sure that much could be learned from the real progress that has been made in investigating and prosecuting child sexual abuse cases. Where appropriate, prosecutors should make links with experts in other areas in order to build a stronger case.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Minister for her response. One midwife, Alison Hughes, is organising a conference on 21 September in Birmingham, because the situation is getting serious. She now treats up to five cases a week of women giving birth who have been mutilated, and it causes huge problems. If the Minister cannot give me an answer now, will she write to tell me whether any cases that are going to be prosecuted are in the pipeline?

Lynne Featherstone: This is an important issue, and I am aware of the hon. Lady’s interest and involvement in it. On the conference and cases in progress, the police investigated 58 cases in 2009-10, but none so far has come to prosecution. I do not know, as I stand here, whether there is anything in the pipeline, but the legal guidance is one of the main hopes behind making prosecutors more aware of how to take cases forward, and I am very happy to deal with her directly.

Tom Brake: The Minister will be aware that the charity Forward published a report in 2007 which identified that 20,000 girls under 15 years old were at risk. One of its recommendations was that the issue be treated not just as a health issue, but as violence against women and girls. Will she set out what progress is being made to place the focus not only on health, but on the violence aspect?

Lynne Featherstone: We certainly do put the emphasis on the issue being not just about domestic violence, but about a violation of human rights. It is the most serious of offences against young women—all women—and it is part of our action plan, which includes 88 actions. The legal guidance is also part of the issue, but we are taking a range of measures.
	For example, I was at the Manor Gardens centre—[ Interruption. ] If Mr Speaker will forgive me, I must say also that there are guidelines for front-line services, so that people on the front line can spot girls who do
	not come forward and ensure that we get assistance to them, support them and signpost them and work with more people who work in the community—including those who work with the FGM forum, which is a very important centre.

Ann Clwyd: My Bill in 2003, which became the Female Genital Mutilation Act of the same year, came into force in 2004, but I have continually asked this question in the House: 74,000 young girls have undergone this procedure in the United Kingdom, every year the numbers are increasing instead of decreasing and other countries are able to bring prosecutions, so what is the point in having a measure on the statute book unless it improves the lives of people and does not just lie there?

Lynne Featherstone: I understand the right hon. Lady’s frustration. We are all frustrated, and in government we are frustrated, but we are working with the police and all relevant partners to try to ensure that prosecutions go forward. We have distributed more than 40,000 leaflets and posters, which have been circulated in schools and to health services. The guidelines are to enable prosecutors to bring cases, but clearly there are issues because, as she knows, when such acts take place in the family and are part of a—[ Interruption. ] I understand, but what I have seen from working with the FGM forum and across government is that those with a knowledge of the community are best placed to help us to get families to bring cases forward, and we are working with the police and the prosecution service to do so.

Flexible Working

Philip Hollobone: What plans she has to improve arrangements for flexible working.

Alun Cairns: What steps she is taking to improve arrangements for flexible working.

Stephen Mosley: What steps she is taking to improve arrangements for flexible working.

Maria Miller: We want people to be able to balance their work and caring responsibilities, and the Government are committed to removing the barriers to that. Over the summer, we put forward our proposals to extend to all employees the right to request flexible working, and we will respond to that consultation in due course.

Philip Hollobone: Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, about one quarter of older workers would continue to work beyond retirement if they were able to work flexible hours?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The ability to work flexibly can work for many different groups of people, and that is why we believe that bringing forward measures that could give people more opportunities to do so is so important. I hope that I can count on his support.

Alun Cairns: There is some evidence that flexible working can have a positive impact on productivity. What incentives can the Government offer to employers to encourage more of them to offer that facility?

Maria Miller: I think my hon. Friend mentions one incentive himself and makes a very good point: the flexibility itself can be an incentive for companies to take it up. But we have set up legislative opportunities to improve the situation and, importantly, non-legislative opportunities, because the very culture of companies—in particular, the culture of “presenteeism”, which unfortunately too often pervades small and large companies—can make it very difficult for employees to take up flexible working.

Stephen Mosley: Many Members of the House will have personal experience of trying to juggle a career and looking after small children. What action is my hon. Friend taking to help parents of young children to return to the work force after looking after their children?

Maria Miller: I was in that position, a few years ago now. It is a difficult transition to make. That is why we are making it a great priority to introduce a new system of flexible parental leave so that new parents can choose how to share child care between them. That, along with our reforms of the benefits system under universal credit, will help many more women in particular to stay close to the labour market.

Anne Begg: As we have heard, flexible working can be a very good thing, but sometimes the phrase is misinterpreted by employers, and that leads to bad practices such as zero-hour contracts and unrealistic flexibility that they look for from employees instead of giving them set hours. Will the Minister guard against always using the phrase “flexible working”? We may think it is a positive thing, but some employers interpret it differently.

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady makes an important point. They are the sorts of issues that will come out in our consultation.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister will be aware that one of the biggest barriers to women returning to work is lack of child care. Women who want to work flexibly need to know that that child care will be not only available but affordable. Has she seen the report by the Daycare Trust and Save the Children, which says that the cost of child care is driving people out of work and making it impossible for them to afford that child care? What will the Government do about this? Will she ask the Chancellor to look again at the child care elements of the working tax credit?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. It can be a real problem for families to identify the right child care. That is why, under our universal credit reforms, we will continue to invest at least the same amount as is currently in place to support child care, and we are focusing on exactly how we will deliver that. I was pleased to see that colleagues in the Department for Education have extended early years free entitlement for three and four-year-olds to 15 hours. These are the sorts of measures that will make a real difference to the people the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Yvette Cooper: Flexible working is vital for the economy and for families. The only thing the Government have done so far on flexible working is to stop regulations coming in that would have extended the right to request flexible working to parents of 17-year-olds. At the same time, policies on jobs and on child care are making it harder and harder, with every day that goes by, for women and parents to work. With women’s unemployment at a record high and rising, and with child care support being cut as costs rise, her Government’s own memo on women says:
	“we have made bold statements or promises but haven’t delivered enough”.
	The truth is that they have not delivered at all; they are making it worse. What is the Minister going to do, and when does she think that women’s unemployment will start to fall—this month, next month, next year?

Maria Miller: Unlike the right hon. Lady’s Government when they were in power, we do not blow hot and cold on flexible working; we are committed to it. This Government absolutely take seriously the issues that are faced by women, and we have already taken a great deal of action to ensure that women are supported not only in the work place but throughout their family life. We have increased spending on health and child tax credit, and the right to request flexible working is part of that package. We have taken 880,000 of the lowest paid workers out of income tax altogether, the majority of whom are women. The right hon. Lady needs to look at the score card of achievements that we have put in place and compare them against her own.

Violence against Women and Girls

Greg Hands: What steps she is taking to tackle violence against women and girls.

Lynne Featherstone: On 8 March this year, we published our action plan on tackling violence against women and girls. We have already delivered on that in several areas, including a commitment to provide more than £38 million of Home Office and Ministry of Justice funding over four years for local specialist services to support victims of domestic and sexual violence.

Greg Hands: Under the last Labour Government, rape crisis centres were closing at a rate of two per annum. Will the Minister confirm that this Government will never do anything to put such important services and their funding at risk?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It is true that under the previous Government, the number of rape support centres in England and Wales fell dramatically. This Government have committed £10 million to local rape support centres over the next three years. The Ministry of Justice is working with the sexual violence sector to open 15 new centres where there are gaps in provision. The first four of those will open this year in Hereford, Trafford, Devon and Dorset. Further work is being done to identify other parts of the country where there is an acute need for such services.

Ann Coffey: One resource identified in the action plan to end violence against women and girls is participatory local budgeting. The plan states that Stockport is to have this from March 2011. However, Stockport has been doing local participatory budgeting for three years. Will the Minister clarify whether there will be additional funding, as is implied in the action plan?

Lynne Featherstone: My understanding is that there will be, but I will check that and write to the hon. Lady to confirm it.

Fiona Mactaggart: The No. 10 memo describing why women do not like this Government suggests that targeted Home Office work on women, crime and confidence is required. At the time when the officials were drawing up that memo with a focus group that looks to me as though it was made up of secretaries and researchers in No. 10, I was listening to women in my constituency, who were worried about perverts harassing them on buses and on the street. What targeted Home Office work is being done to help such women?

Lynne Featherstone: We are working with all the police agencies and the Association of Chief Police Officers to focus on those issues, including stalking and harassment. Tackling stalking, for example, is a key priority for the Home Secretary. We have committed long-term funding to the national stalking helpline over the spending review period and we have set up a national stalking strategy group to ensure that actions on stalking are taken under the violence against women and girls action plan. That is an example of one area of work that is targeted.

Civil Partnership Ceremonies

Andrea Leadsom: What her policy is on permitting civil partnership ceremonies in religious premises.

Lynne Featherstone: Earlier this year, I announced our intention to implement section 202 of the Equality Act 2010 to remove the ban in England and Wales on civil partnerships being registered on religious premises. It is a voluntary measure for faith groups that want to allow that to happen. It is an
	important step forward for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights, and for religious freedom. We are considering the responses to the public consultation and working to bring the regulations into force by the end of this year.

Andrea Leadsom: Of course it is reasonable for religious premises that wish to hold civil partnerships to be able to do so. However, does the Minister agree that it is entirely inappropriate for the Government to get involved in any decision about civil partnerships being held in a particular religious venue?

Lynne Featherstone: I reassure my hon. Friend that I totally agree with her sentiment. The Government have made the decision to enable premises that want to host civil partnership registrations to do so. This is about religious freedom. I am absolutely clear that it is not for the Government to force any religious organisation to host civil partnership registrations if they do not wish to do so.

Chris Bryant: I hope that all churches will want to celebrate same-sex commitments. However, I am worried that the Government are introducing another anomaly. When gay people get married in a civil partnership they will be able to have religious symbols and ceremonies, but if straight couples do not want to get married in a church, but would none the less like to have religious music or symbols, they are not allowed to have them. I think that we should go for straightforward equality with gay marriage and straight marriage being exactly the same.

Lynne Featherstone: I have had many conversations on this issue. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants these things and we have discussed them. Right now, we are moving forward on allowing civil partnerships to be registered in religious premises. From listening to people, it is clear that there is a desire to move forward on equal marriages and partnerships. We are working with people to move that agenda forward.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise to colleagues but, as so often, demand has exceeded supply and we must move on.

Palestine and the United Nations

Gerald Kaufman: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. May I appeal to colleagues who are almost unaccountably not staying for the urgent question to leave quietly so we can hear Sir Gerald?

Gerald Kaufman: Always a treat, Mr Speaker.
	I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement stating the intentions of Her Majesty’s Government with regard to the application next week of the Palestinian Government at the United Nations.

Alistair Burt: First, Mr Speaker, may I apologise to you and the House for the absence of the Foreign Secretary this morning. I think it is well known that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are on a visit to Libya and I am sure that the whole House will wish them both well as they make that journey and return safely.
	With permission, I will make a statement in answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the Government’s intentions with regard to the application next week of the Palestinian Government at the United Nations. The Palestinian leadership has yet to submit any application to the United Nations. If and when an application is received, we will make a decision about how to respond. Without knowing the content of any such application, it would be premature to speculate on what the Government’s response might be.
	This year marks the 20th year of the middle east peace process—20 years since the Madrid conference was launched. For the Palestinians and Israelis, not much has changed in nearly two decades since the Oslo accords were signed. The Israelis continue to face threats from violent extremists and the Palestinians still have no state. The UK has long been clear that peace in the middle east, enabling a resolution of the long-running dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, has enormous importance for global and regional security. The goal of the international community should be to ensure that this is the last year of process and the beginning of a lasting agreement between the parties. Events in the wider middle east region call for a redoubling of international efforts to support peace, stability and democracy. Nowhere is that need more pressing than in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
	The world can no longer claim that change in the middle east will come slowly and incrementally, or allow the middle east peace process to limp along indefinitely, as it has done. If the peace process becomes a casualty of regional change, it will feed instability and violence, not democracy and human development. While the Arab spring goes much broader than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this dispute deeply affects the politics of the broader region. The fluid dynamics resulting from the Arab spring make the prize of stability that would result from any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians even more significant.
	There is no alternative to negotiations to address the fundamental issues at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a solution cannot be imposed from outside. The parties need to redouble their efforts to break the impasse and resume negotiations on a two-state solution before the window to such a solution closes. Bold leadership is needed from all sides. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians can afford to let the opportunity for peace slip further from their grasp. The two-state solution is the only way of realising the Palestinian aspirations for a state of their own and the long-term security that the Israelis deserve.
	The Prime Minister made our position on United Nations’ recognition of a Palestinian state very clear during the visit of President Obama in May. He agreed with the President that a Palestinian state was a legitimate goal, but that the best way of achieving that was through a comprehensive agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. So, our focus remains on continuing to push hard for a return to negotiations on the basis agreed by the Prime Minister and President Obama. The United Kingdom Government want to see borders based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, security for Israel, and the right for Palestinians to govern themselves in a sovereign and contiguous state. We see Jerusalem as a shared city which will be the capital of both countries and we also, of course, accept that there needs to be an agreed and just solution for Palestinian refugees.
	However, Palestinian action at the UN this month now looks increasingly likely. As I have said, we do not yet know the form that such action might take. We are working closely with partners to build consensus on a way forward that recognises the progress the Palestinians have made on their state-building efforts, that meets Israel’s legitimate security concerns and that avoids confrontation in the UN.
	Whatever action is taken in New York, it is important that this increases the prospects for a return to negotiations. It is important to remember that action in the UN is not an end in itself. September is not the “closing date” for resolution of this conflict. What happens next is vital, which is why our goal remains to ensure that steps taken now pave the way for significant, conclusive talks. It is vital that any action in the UN does nothing to endanger the prospect of talks. It is emphatically in our national interest to see an independent, democratic Palestinian state living in peace with Israel, not at some ever-receding point in the future, but within a limited, practical time frame—not a part-deal on temporary borders that gives no promise for the future, but an agreement on all final status issues that will signal an end to all claims. I would like to assure hon. Members that the British Government will not cease in their efforts to support the parties in finding a long-term, sustainable solution to this conflict that will make this vision a reality.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the Minister, although his reply was on the long side. We need exchanges to be pithy, because I want to accommodate colleagues who wish to question the Minister.

Gerald Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be totally inconsistent to support freedom for the people of Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Syria, but
	not actively to support, through this country’s UN votes, comparable independence for the people of Palestine, who have been waiting 64 years for UN decisions to be fulfilled and implemented? Will he understand that a Palestinian success will transform the situation in the middle east, but that if the Palestinians go to the UN Security Council and, if needs be, the General Assembly and fail, the Israelis will regard it as a triumph and it will be the end of the 20-year peace process? Will the Government stand up and put their hand up for the Palestinian people at the UN?

Alistair Burt: The Government have always been clear about their recognition of a Palestinian state at the conclusion of a process of negotiation between the parties in which mutual security has been guaranteed. We see no reason to move from that position, because anything else would threaten the compromise and security position that we all want to achieve. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the importance of success in New York and what it would mean. We agree entirely. It would be a disaster if in New York one side proclaimed triumph and the other reacted to a disaster. We are working hard with all partners to try to ensure that, whatever comes out of the UN, it is in the spirit of both sides feeling that something has been gained and that we have a situation moving towards those negotiations that need to succeed. We are all well aware of how success or disaster could be viewed and what the consequences could be. It is very important that at this stage we work as hard as possible for a resolution that will mean that both sides will be able to recognise that they have gained something and that we all have an opportunity and real hope for the near future.

Menzies Campbell: Does my hon. Friend understand the profound sense of disappointment that there is in the House—and will be outside—at the nature of his remarks? Britain’s influence and reputation will inevitably be substantially diminished unless we show a positive approach to this issue. The Minister did not really answer the contradiction posed by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). How is it that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary can be in the middle east, doing everything in their power to support the principle of self-determination, while the British Government, so close to the question being asked in New York, are unable even to take a position on the Palestinian application? Does he understand that the most telling criticism of British policy in the middle east has always been that of double standards? Is this not just an illustration of that?

Alistair Burt: If my right hon. and learned Friend would like to tell me the final terms of the resolution that will be presented to the UN, we might be in a position to answer the question. However, as I indicated, our position on recognition of Palestine as a state is assured as a result of the processes that have been gone through and the negotiations that are vital between both sides. As I mentioned in my statement, what happens next week is not an event, but part of that process. Palestinian statehood will not be secured by a resolution, whatever anyone thinks or whatever is passed at the UN. It will be secured by the mutual recognition of both sides, which comes through the negotiation process that both sides have been committed to. Our position remains that we are determined to ensure that
	whatever happens at the UN next week—and he genuinely should not prejudge anyone’s position in this on any side—it is good for the future and not damaging to the negotiation process.

Stephen Twigg: I refer the House to my relevant entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) for tabling an urgent question on this important issue. Surely it would have been better for the Government to have come to the House this week with an oral statement covering this issue and the developments elsewhere in the region, including Syria.
	Labour has long supported the establishment of two states living side by side in peace and recognised by all their neighbours. There is widespread frustration and disappointment at the failure to make any progress in recent years. We seek an immediate return to meaningful negotiation between the parties, based on the 1967 borders with land swaps, resulting in a Palestinian state living in peace and security with Israel.
	The Palestinians’ path to independent statehood will require recognition at the United Nations, and Labour supports that goal. We will judge any move made at the United Nations next week—such as the potential upgrading to observer status of the Palestinian delegation—on the basis of the contribution that it can make to securing meaningful negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians and achieving a comprehensive agreement. Contrary to what the Minister has said today, however, we believe that the options before the international community are now clear. This morning, President Abbas, who has seized the attention of the world on this issue, has said that the Palestinians will pursue statehood in the absence of genuine alternatives.
	Will the Minister set out the Government’s position for the House today—the last opportunity before the House rises for the recess—and tell us how the United Kingdom will vote on the following three very real scenarios? First, how would we vote in the UN Security Council on full recognition? Secondly, what would be our position in a vote in the UN General Assembly advocating full recognition? Thirdly, how would we vote in the General Assembly on enhanced observer status for the Palestinians?

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what was, at the beginning of his remarks, a clear statement of a position that is virtually identical to that of the Government. That is to say, he and his party will make a judgment on any option that is put forward next week on the basis of the contribution that it can make to an ultimate settlement. We will do exactly the same. I am sure that he will respect my position when I tell him that I cannot answer his hypothetical questions, because every nuance in every comment adds to the general pot that is now being discussed. There are times when these issues have to be put privately, before a public position can be taken.
	Over the past few weeks, we have heard many statements from representatives on all sides, indicating that a vote might be taken in the United Nations Security Council or that it might not, that it might be taken in the General Assembly or that it might not, or that this
	might depend on a Quartet statement. All those issues are still live and current, and although I quite understand the House’s desire to know the negotiating position, it would be genuinely unfair of hon. Members to press me on that at this stage. My answer would have to be the same. I understand entirely where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, and we take comfort from understanding, from his first remarks, that he and his party recognise the position that we are in. We want to ensure that nothing that is put forward and agreed next week will damage the prospect of peace between the parties, which we believe will come from a negotiated settlement and, we hope, as soon as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. So far, this matter has absorbed 13 minutes, and the vast majority of Back Benchers are still waiting to speak. What is required from Back Bench and Front Bench alike is brevity.

Julian Brazier: I welcome my hon. Friend’s firm commitment to a two-state solution, but I put it to him that what has changed over the past 20 years has been the building of a wall through part of the west bank and a programme of settlement building that is very close to closing the door to a two-state solution. May I urge him to take very seriously the Palestinian bid for statehood while, understandably, calling for some conditions?

Alistair Burt: The obstacles and difficulties that my hon. Friend refers to are precisely the reason that this opportunity should be taken before the door to a two-state solution closes.

Louise Ellman: Does the Minister agree that although a negotiated settlement for two states—Israel and Palestine—can bring peace and security to the two peoples, a resolution that cannot deal with the critical detail of borders, Jerusalem and refugees may simply raise false expectations, leading to frustration and violence, thereby impeding the essential and urgent path of negotiations?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady accurately characterises the difficulties and nuances in this situation. It may not be all about a resolution; it may be about a resolution with a Quartet statement dealing with parameters. All that is up for discussion. She is acutely aware of the subsidiary issues that would go alongside any resolution and which are being much discussed at present.

Nicholas Boles: I commend the calm and balanced approach set out by my hon. Friend—so unlike the wild and irresponsible statements by others on both sides of this House, whose long years have clearly not brought them wisdom. What matters—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw.”] No, I will not withdraw it; I believe it and I am happy to restate it for anyone who cares to hear it again. What matters in this situation is actual changes on the ground, in the feelings, thoughts and fears of Israeli people and Palestinian people. What does not matter is posturing in the House of Commons or the United Nations General Assembly by politicians trying to associate themselves with a cause and taking up a brave position, but not thinking about the people whose interests should be at the heart of it.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister—find a question there.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful for the wisdom and advice of colleagues on all sides and at all different stages in their parliamentary careers. I welcome it from those who, like me, have been around for a while and from those who are new here. My hon. Friend gets to the heart of it when he says that there are dangers and risks that come from people taking established positions at a very early stage, when the truth, as we all know, is that negotiations proceed on a parallel track, sometimes in private and sometimes leading to a different outcome. We all need to keep our counsel calm and wise over the weekend, and I am absolutely certain that those most closely involved in negotiations would entirely fulfil my hon. Friend’s requirements.

David Winnick: That last intervention from the Conservative Back Benches could have been more appropriate in the Israeli Parliament. Is the Minister aware that if there is a vote at the United Nations, what we do will be seen as how far Britain is genuinely committed to the Palestinian cause and to the creation of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state alongside Israel? Time and again British Governments have said, like today, that they are in favour of a Palestinian state, but so far there has been little action to bring that about.

Alistair Burt: It is because we are well aware of the implications of the United Kingdom vote on any resolution that we are being so careful and working so hard to ensure that a resolution is not couched in terms such that it either leaves one side completely dissatisfied and adds to the frustration or indefinitely extends the chance of reaching a settlement to deal with the frustrations that the hon. Gentleman very properly articulates.

Robert Halfon: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that when Netanyahu visited the United States in May 2011 he said that he wanted to negotiate with the Palestinians and that Israel would not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state? However, does he not also agree that it is difficult to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority when its main partner is Hamas, which refuses to recognise Israel or renounce terrorism and continues to fire missiles on Israeli towns?

Alistair Burt: Our position on Hamas is well known and we have no contact with it. However, as we know, there are difficulties on all sides, and each side has reasons why it has not wanted to proceed to negotiations or why it might rebuff others. Equally, each side knows that if it really wants a settlement, it is in its power to try to overcome those difficulties, seek confidence and assurances from each other and move on. What is different now—this may come through next week—is the urgency of the situation, as conveyed by the whole international community. We need to make progress and that requires all sides to be prepared to take the steps to help that happen, difficult though they may be.

Jeremy Corbyn: For many decades the Palestinian people have sought justice, peace and recognition. The vote in the UN is the culmination of a very good campaign that has been supported by a wide range of Palestinian opinion. Does the Minister
	recognise that not to support it—to vote against it—will put the whole cause back a long way and reduce the chances of any kind of long-term peace and settlement in the whole region? He must be more positive than he has been so far today.

Alistair Burt: I am positive about our wanting a situation next week that leads to proper negotiations to see the settlement of the dispute, because of the frustrations that the hon. Gentleman articulates. I cannot be more positive about that than I have been, but there is no resolution yet and I would take issue with the sense that this is the culmination of a campaign. My sense is that the United Nations procedure next week is an important event, but there will be a day after and facts on the ground will not be different the day after. What the UN has to lead to is something that makes the situation on the ground capable of the solution and compromise through negotiations that we need. That will be to the benefit of both the Palestinians and the Israelis alike.

John Hemming: Does my hon. Friend accept that we need to ensure that among the various roads to peace there are at least some without roadblocks on them?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman raises, in his own way, a practical issue that affects the occupied territories. It is much discussed in this House and, as we are aware, something that a settlement between the two parties will ultimately sweep away, so that we have a viable west bank and Gaza continuing the economic progress that we have seen in recent years, as supported by the United Kingdom. However, those issues have to be dealt with by the parties themselves in the negotiations that we all wish to see.

Luciana Berger: Polling consistently shows that over 60% of both Israeli and Palestinian communities support a two-state solution. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that everything is done to support the peoples of both countries in their aims and aspirations?

Alistair Burt: I entirely concur with the hon. Lady.

Julian Lewis: Am I right in recalling that in 1948 the United Nations voted for a hasty two-state solution before agreement had been reached between the parties and that the result was an immediate outbreak of hostilities between them?

Alistair Burt: There are many interpretations of what happened at the UN in 1948, but my hon. Friend is right to suggest that a resolution at the United Nations by itself does not secure the peace between peoples unless it is soundly based on proper recognition, respect and confidence between the two. That is what we earnestly wish to see from the negotiations, which we hope will restart shortly and which we are pressing for as part of our approach to this weekend.

Andy Slaughter: The sense of urgency that the Minister talks about seems to be almost entirely absent from the Government’s position. On the contrary, in his response to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) he talked about mutual recognition. Does
	that not give the game away? Is this not actually about giving the Israeli Government a veto over when a Palestinian state is recognised?

Alistair Burt: No. What I am actually about is what I said.

Bob Blackman: I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and the words that he used. Personally, I strongly believe that there need to be negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians and that at the end of that process the state of Palestine should be recognised. May I therefore urge him to join the United States in the Security Council in vetoing the premature creation of a Palestinian state and also in the General Assembly in voting against such a proposal, but to make it clear that at the end of negotiations, when matters are satisfactorily resolved, we would universally recognise the Palestinian state?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend tempts me again to take a position on a hypothetical situation. Let me say again that I cannot go into that until we see a resolution. I stick to the position that I have taken, which is the belief that the United Kingdom must ensure that whatever is tabled next week and whatever gets through the United Nations leads to a proper approach to negotiations in which both sides can feel confident of some movement.

Michael Connarty: Can I ask the Minister a simple question? I have heard all the problems that he has outlined and the finessing of those on our Benches, but does he agree with those who say that if there is recognition, it would be a barrier to progress? Would it not be better for two nations to recognise each other and continue to negotiate a settlement than for one to reject, acting as a colonial nation, and for the other to be an imprisoned nation?

Alistair Burt: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. The barriers to progress are many, and they are very much about trust and confidence as well as the legacy of negotiations in the past. A situation where one side proclaims victory and the other feels defeat will not help anyone, no matter what the subject matter might be. Let us therefore try to work towards a situation next week where a resolution will not bring that about, which is what many parties are seeking to achieve.

Andrew Percy: I welcome the Minister’s cautious approach on this issue. As said by other hon. Members, there is no way that a unilateral declaration of statehood can make up for negotiations. There is a risk of the issue becoming a battering ram for those who seek the delegitimisation of Israel, so will he give us an assurance that the British Government will take no part in anything that seeks to do that?

Alistair Burt: I can assure my hon. Friend that neither this Government nor the previous one had any truck with the delegitimisation of Israel, and they both took many steps to reject those who tried to project such an image—and that will continue. Ultimately, the relationships between the rest of the world and Israel and, indeed, the rest of the world and the Palestinians will be much affected by the way in which they can work together to get the agreement that we all seek. We will do everything in our power to encourage that.

Michael McCann: Following the recent terror attacks on southern Israel and the storming of the Israeli embassy in Egypt, does the Minister agree that what Israel needs now is partners and peace on the ground rather than being isolated at the UN?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman makes a sharp point. The situation in the middle east has changed, not only over months but over weeks. It increases the sense of urgency with which this Government are approaching these next few days and our determination to say to both parties that, in the midst of such instability and concern, what an extraordinary event it would be to go away from the United Nations with something that the international community was confident would lead to progress and in respect of which both sides could accept that they had gained something and would therefore want to respond to the international situation of concern and the need for urgency. That is what we would like to seek.

Robert Buckland: As someone who supports the creation of a Palestinian state, does the Minister agree with me that if there is to be enhanced or full representation for Palestine at the UN, those representatives need to be able to speak with authority for the majority of decent Palestinians as opposed to an extremist minority?

Alistair Burt: I am sure that the ultimate representation of Palestinians at the UN, which is clearly a matter for the Palestinian Authority, will be decided by what President Abbas said when he announced the relationship with Hamas, stating that it had to live up to the principles of a democratic future state of Palestine, with recognition of previous agreements, recognition of the state of Israel, and an end to violence.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Minister continually refuses to give an indication of the approach that the Government will take next week because the negotiations are ongoing. The negotiations, however, are not ones from which the British Government are an absent partner; they are actively involved in those negotiations, so it is fair to ask what attitude the British Government are taking towards them. Will the Minister at least say how the Government would vote on the three particular scenarios put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)?

Alistair Burt: I give a straight answer to a straight question. No, I will not respond to those scenarios, for the reasons I gave. I was asked about our approach, but I hope I have made our approach, as well as our determination, very clear. The detail is not there because the detail of a resolution is not before us. Of course it has been widely discussed, and although we are not an active party to the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, we have a huge interest. I hope I have conveyed the approach and the intention of the United Kingdom.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as a gesture to make sure that whatever is put forward to the United Nations next week has some credibility, returning Gilad Shalit to his family this week would be a step forward?

Alistair Burt: This Government have long campaigned for the unconditional release of Gilad Shalit. I take my hon. Friend’s point: we are all aware that gestures and things could be done that would be highly damaging to the process as a result of what might happen next week, yet extraordinary gestures could be made that would mark a real difference and a step forward. One such gesture would certainly be the release of Gilad Shalit, but that is not, of course, within the control of the Palestinian Authority.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister talks about not handing anyone victory or defeat, but does he recognise that, if the vote were taken and the Palestinians were defeated at the United Nations, this would simply hand an absolute victory to those in Tel Aviv who would recognise that there was no pressure to make any progress whatever?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience on these matters, but I have to say that those in the respective foreign affairs departments looking at the issue would recognise that there is significant pressure from the United Kingdom on all. Again, I cannot be tempted to commit to a particular position on a vote that is not yet clear.

Bob Russell: In June, I visited the west bank and east Jerusalem and saw the consequences of the state of Israel’s policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people. Bearing in mind that Israel does not honour United Nations resolutions, is it not time that Britain, Europe and the rest of the world treated Israel in the way we treated apartheid South Africa?

Alistair Burt: The consequences of the failure to resolve this long-running matter have many different shades on all sides. That is why it is essential to see it resolved and why we feel a sense of urgency to do so.

Denis MacShane: First, can the Minister confirm that Britain is not going to participate in the UN so-called Durban III conference? Secondly, will there be a common EU position on the question of recognition of Palestinian independence?

Alistair Burt: Two good questions. First, yes, I can confirm that there will be no UK participation at Durban III. Secondly, the more effectively EU partners can work together, the better, and we are much in contact with each other at this time.

Matthew Offord: Does the Minister agree that the real judgment should be for an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, particularly on mutual recognition, security guarantees, an end to violence and incitement, settlements, borders, Jerusalem, refugees and other day-to-day trade issues, and that any intended UN declaration, including on observer status, simply evades all those issues?

Alistair Burt: As my hon. Friend has made clear and as I mentioned in the course of my remarks, many subsidiary issues—hugely important ones—are being considered at the same time as any potential resolution. Of course, he makes the point that much of this is
	wrapped up together, so taking one position out of all those and believing it to be definitive is highly unlikely. That is why we continue to press for both sides to be in negotiations on all the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the Minister. I have done my best to accommodate the level of interest of colleagues and I apologise to those whom I have not been able to accommodate.If the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray)would stop wringing her hands and listen to the explanation, she might leave better informed. There is a business statement to come and two very heavily subscribed debates are to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. Ordinarily, I try to get everybody in; I cannot today. I hope that it is understood.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 10 October will be:
	Monday 10 October—Remaining stages of the Protection of Freedoms Bill (day 1).
	Tuesday 11 October—Remaining stages of the Protection of Freedoms Bill (day 2).
	Wednesday 12 October—Opposition day [unallotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 13 October—Motions relating to the use of hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber and Committees (HC 889), improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny (HC 800) and ministerial statements (HC 602), followed by general debate on High Speed 2.
	The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 17 October will include:
	Monday 17 October—Motion relating to MPs’ pensions, followed by motion relating to disclosure and publication of documents relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Tuesday 18 October—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 19 October—Opposition day. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 20 October—Consideration of Lords amendments.
	Friday 21 October—Private Members’ Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 13 and 20 October will be:
	Thursday 13 October—A debate on responses to the riots.
	Thursday 20 October—A debate on scrutiny of arms export controls (2011): UK strategic export controls annual report 2009, quarterly reports for 2010, licensing policy and review of export control legislation (HC 686).
	Finally, on 12 July, the House was able to convey its gratitude to Sir Malcolm Jack on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House. As today is the last sitting day before the Clerk retires, may I take this further opportunity on behalf of the House to reiterate our gratitude and to send him our warmest wishes for the future?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. On behalf of the Opposition, may I join him in expressing again our thanks to Sir Malcolm for everything that he has done in the service of the House and of our democracy, and in wishing him all the best for the future?
	May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on why, at Prime Minister’s questions, he keeps saying things that simply do not accord with the facts. Yesterday, he told the House:
	“Bank lending is actually going up.”——[Official Report, 14 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 1034.]
	Wrong. The Bank of England’s most recent data show that overall lending to businesses is falling. Yesterday he also claimed that private sector employment has increased by 500,000. Wrong. The Office for National Statistics confirms that private sector employment increased by only 264,000 in the year to June 2011. In answering a question about growth in the European Union by trying to talk about America instead—curiously, as America has not been part of Europe for nearly 250 years—he claimed that the UK is growing faster than the United States. That was wrong too. The US economy has grown by 2.6% over the past year to the end of the second quarter, while the UK has grown by only 0.7%.
	The Prime Minister takes the most important decisions, and he has a responsibility to do so on the basis of accurate facts, yet it is now clear that he is repeatedly getting things wrong. It might be incompetence—he might actually believe all this stuff—but either way, it is no wonder that the public are losing confidence in the Government’s economic policy.
	May we have a debate on the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for England? The Leader of the House will be aware of the deep disquiet, not to say anger, about the proposals, which, in places, will divide communities and destroy relationships that have been built up over many years between constituents and their Members of Parliament, and all in pursuit of an over-rigid mathematical formula. For example, there is a proposed constituency for Gloucester minus the cathedral that makes it a city, and one for a new seat called the Mersey Banks, covering three different local authorities, where one would have to leave the constituency three times and go over a bridge to get from one end of it to the other. It is no wonder that words such as “muddle”, “utterly random” and “barking” have been heard this week. Even the mild-mannered Business Secretary has complained.
	This is only the beginning because, as the House will be aware, the same inflexible formula will be applied every five years from now on, so we can expect further regular disruption, with MPs and their constituents not knowing who will be representing whom next. Given the disruption that the changes will bring, I suspect that quite a few Members who voted for the Bill that led to the proposals will now be saying to themselves, “What have we done?”
	May we have a statement on reports that the Government propose to ask bereaved relatives, including those on low incomes, for payment when they go to register the death of a loved one? The charge, estimates of which vary from £100 to £180, is apparently intended to pay for a new system to check on causes of death, but the cost, which is no longer to be hidden in funeral directors’ charges, will be collected when families turn up, often in a distressed state, at the register office, or they will be sent an invoice later. Given that the Conservative party made such a fuss at the last election about a so-called death tax, will a Minister explain at the Dispatch Box why they now plan to impose one?
	Finally, having mentioned Mr Steve Hilton last week, this week we have been helpfully provided with a restricted memo from his comrade at No. 10, Mr Andrew Cooper. Headed, “The problem”, it reveals that women voters just do not like this Government. In a damning section, it says that
	“we are clear that there are a range of policies we have pursued as a Government which are seen as having hit women, or their interests, disproportionately, including: Public sector pay and pensions…Tuition fees, Abolition of Child Trust Funds, Changes to child tax credit and the childcare element, Changes to child benefit.”
	Mr Cooper is clearly a man who can get his judgment and his facts right. We wish him well in trying to persuade his boss to do the same.

George Young: Yet again the right hon. Gentleman has made no substantive criticism of the business the Government have laid before the House for the next two weeks. He will have noted that we have allocated two days for the Report stage of a Bill, which was virtually unheard of in the Government of whom he was a member.
	On statistics, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should look carefully at the dates to which the statistics that he read out apply. He might well find that the Prime Minister’s statistics were perfectly accurate, and that the ones that he used were also accurate. The period over which one takes statistics is crucial, and ‘twas ever thus.
	On the Boundary Commission, it is indefensible that a constituency such as Arfon currently has some 40,000 voters, whereas East Ham has more than 90,000. That is the position that the boundaries Bill, which is now on the statute book, was set to address. We are also reducing the numbers of Members of Parliament. This House is the largest directly elected Chamber in the whole of Europe, and we believe that Members can perfectly adequately represent 77,000 people, and many already do. I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman has been inconvenienced by the proposals. I understand that there might be an interesting discussion between him and the shadow Chancellor, and my sympathies are entirely with him. He knows better than anybody that the place to make such representations about boundaries is not in the House, but to the Boundary Commission.

Chris Bryant: What about your boundaries?

George Young: This is my fifth boundary review. I have been expanded, reduced and abolished. These reforms have no surprises.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised a serious issue about the fees that are payable on the registration of a death. The issue may arise from the coroners legislation, and I will ask the Lord Chancellor to write to him with a response.
	The right hon. Gentleman ended with a reference to Mr Hilton. Last week, the right hon. Gentleman bombarded me with seven requests for debates, and I assumed that the Opposition would choose at least one of them for the Opposition day on Tuesday, but not one of the subjects that he felt were so important last Thursday appeared on the agenda. I think we have rumbled him. For him, these sessions are just as much opportunities to display his great sense of humour as to make serious bids for debates.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on social mobility and aspiration? I am sure that many people were touched by the report in The Sunday Times of an 11-year-old girl, Aliyah Tribak, who was desperately trying to raise funds to go to the independent school that she wanted to get into but could not afford, as she is from a deprived background in Tower Hamlets. If the Government are serious about social mobility and allowing people to meet their aspirations, surely it is time that we reintroduced the assisted places scheme, so that the best schools in the country are available to the poorest and not just the preserve of the rich and privileged.

George Young: I understand the forceful case that my hon. Friend makes for the restoration of assisted places. Our view is that the best way to make progress is to pursue our policy on free schools, which inevitably have a much broader catchment area than those of the independent sector, and to drive up standards for all children in all schools, which is the thrust of my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary’s policy. I hope that that will achieve the objectives of social mobility and aspiration that my hon. Friend has just enunciated.

Natascha Engel: May I add my thanks to Sir Malcolm Jack and wish him every success for the future?
	In his business statement, the Leader of the House mentioned a couple of Back-Bench debates, one on Hillsborough and the other on the riots, both of which arguably started as a result of an e-petition that reached 100,000 signatures. At Tuesday’s meeting of the Backbench Business Committee, we discussed the best way to proceed with e-petitions, and decided that in the short term we were only able to hear proposals involving e-petitions directly from Members as part of a bid, which we would consider on their merits as we would for normal bids. The Committee will continue to discuss the matter to find a long-term solution for dealing more satisfactorily with e-petitions and to ensure that, rather than becoming gimmicks, they are meaningful. Until we find such a long-term solution, will the Leader of the House commit to giving the Backbench Business Committee additional time to accommodate the new e-pressures that the Government have put on us?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and her Committee for finding time to debate the two e-petitions that had crossed the 100,000 threshold. We note her public service announcement that e-petitions will be debated only if they are picked up by a Member and then formally presented to her for debate.
	The hon. Lady asked about time for her Committee. As I have said on earlier occasions, we will honour the commitment to a minimum of 35 days in a Session, and because the current Session is longer, more than 35 days will be provided. Now that the bulk—although not all—of the legislative programme has been completed in the House of Commons, I hope that in the months and weeks ahead it may be possible to find more headroom for Backbench Business Committee debates. As is clear from the business that I have just announced, there will be more time for the Committee than there has been in recent weeks.

Edward Timpson: Very tragically, a toddler was killed last year in a house fire in my constituency. The inquest has now reported
	that the fire was caused by another child playing with matches, which then ignited a highly flammable mattress. Could time be found for a debate on fire safety, which would include advice on preventing access to flammable materials and on the use of flame-retardant furnishings to help reduce the risk of such tragic events happening again in the future?

George Young: The whole House will have been sorry to hear of the loss of life of the toddler in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I believe that there are restrictions on the materials that can be used in many items of furniture. However, I will raise the instance that the hon. Gentleman has given with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is responsible for consumer affairs, and see whether there are any further steps that we can take to avoid a repetition of the tragedy.

Jack Dromey: The Government have proposed the most fundamental changes to our planning system for 64 years. Widespread concern has been expressed about the fact that the national planning policy framework fails to strike the right balance between growth on one hand, and the protection of our natural environment and ensuring a real say for local people on the other. Do the Government intend to put the final draft of the framework to Parliament, following full consultation, so that both Houses can vote on it?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a period of consultation on the draft national planning policy framework. The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has responsibility for planning, has on many occasions sought to reassure both the House and the country as a whole that our policies—unlike some designed by our opponents—will create sustainable growth, but not at the expense of the environment and the green belt. The framework does not override local plans, and it protects the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and the rest. I personally would welcome a debate at the end of the process, so that the House could have an opportunity to let its views be heard on this important issue.

Harriett Baldwin: May we have a debate on the relative merits of unilateral and multilateral approaches to the taxation of banks? This Government introduced a unilateral tax on bank balance sheets. We could discuss whether that is a better approach than waiting for a global tax, which I think would still not have come about.

George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we would still be waiting for the global tax if it had been necessary to secure universal agreement before it went ahead. She is also right to remind the House of the unilateral bank levy that we introduced, which will raise almost £10 million during the current Parliament. The one-off bonus tax proposed by the Labour party has real disadvantages, not least the fact that the person who designed it says that a permanent tax would not work.

Ian Mearns: In my constituency, which adjoins Newcastle, four young people have died in recent months after taking cocktails of substances including legally dispensed methadone which has been sold on to them. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health about what he will do to try to prevent such tragic events from occurring again?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to put those questions to the Secretary of State for Health on Tuesday 18 October. In the meantime, I will write to the Secretary of State asking whether any further steps are possible—in addition to those that we have already taken—to stop the unnecessary loss of young life among those who are taking these concoctions.

Bob Russell: Could time be found for an urgent debate on a new European Union directive which, according to the charity Diabetes UK, will result in up to 1 million people with diabetes having their driving licences taken away? It would appear that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is applying the directive far more swiftly than it is being applied in other countries. The ban is due to be introduced next month, so may we have that urgent debate?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I do not know whether he was present for Transport questions earlier today and had an opportunity to raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I am aware of the draft directive, and will raise it with my right hon. Friend and ask him to drop the hon. Gentleman a line.

John Spellar: I think it is generally agreed that the Select Committee system is increasingly showing its worth, but the Leader of the House will be aware of two emerging difficulties: the refusal of witnesses to attend, and the level of veracity of the evidence given. Will he arrange a debate to explore possible remedies, or undertake to consider the issues and report back to the House?

George Young: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern, but I think the issue would be best explored in the first instance through an informal meeting between me and the Liaison Committee, as I imagine that it affects a number of Select Committees. I should be more than willing to engage in such a discussion to establish whether any further steps are necessary.

Peter Bone: My constituency contains the villages of Irchester and Wollaston, which are separated by some beautiful countryside. I have been contacted by residents who fear that the Government’s planning proposals will lead to the land being concreted over. Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), may we have a debate that would expose the myth that the Government’s planning legislation will concrete over the whole of the countryside?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the role that he is playing in demolishing such myths. I said earlier that I would welcome a debate on the draft national policy framework, but if there is a local plan, local people can protect that piece of land from development. I think the message conveyed by my hon. Friend’s question is that it is important for each local
	authority to have an up-to-date local development plan, informed by local opinion, so that any development that takes place has a local consensus behind it.

Jim Sheridan: The Leader of the House will be aware that the public service workers are to be balloted on industrial action aimed at protecting their pensions—industrial action that the workers do not want and the country does not need. Even at this late stage, can the Leader of the House use his good offices to ask the Government to demonstrate, not with warm words but with action, that they are taking the negotiations seriously?

George Young: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I wonder if I could put the same question to him. Can he use his good offices to persuade the relevant unions to call off the action? It is unnecessary, it would damage economic growth and recovery, and many of us consider it to be wholly premature.

David Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the House can vote before Christmas on our sitting hours? The Procedure Committee is considering both sitting hours and the calendar of the House, but would it not be best for us to have a report on sitting hours? I think that there is a strong wish to return to the earlier start on Tuesdays that operated between 2003 and 2005.

George Young: My hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Procedure is conducting an inquiry into the parliamentary calendar, and I understand that some eight hon. Members gave evidence to it yesterday. I am not sure that the Committee is planning to report within the time scale that my hon. Friend has suggested, but certainly any change in the sitting hours will be subject to a vote in the House, which I suspect will take place some time next year.

Dave Watts: Before the election the Prime Minister promised to take tough action against people who are involved in knife crime, but we know from the latest figures that people who are involved in such crimes are now less likely to go to jail. May we have an urgent debate on the matter?

George Young: We have had an opportunity to debate the Government’s proposals on legislation. We have taken a much tougher approach to those who carry knives and then engage in aggressive behaviour, who are now more likely to end up in prison than was the case before.

Martin Vickers: On hearing threats of industrial action emerge from the TUC conference, my constituents are understandably concerned about the impact on their children’s education and the emergency services, for example. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on industrial relations, so that Members can express their views on whether we need to strengthen the laws governing strike ballots?

George Young: It is very disappointing that there have been proposals for ballots on industrial action while negotiations are still going on between the Government and the unions. Any such action would be premature. We have no plans at this stage to change the legislation on industrial action, but we will
	monitor the application of the law in that important area, particularly if strike action takes place, and we will bear all views in mind if it does prove necessary to reassess the legal framework.

Diana Johnson: I am very pleased that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills have now said that bringing Siemens to Hull is a key priority for the Government, but may we have a debate so that we can learn whether Department of Energy and Climate Change Ministers have a long-term commitment to the offshore wind energy sector?

George Young: I understand that such commitments have already been given in broad terms by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. There will be an opportunity on 20 October to press him further on these issues; in the meantime, I will share the hon. Lady’s concern with him.

Nick de Bois: Will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate on the future of my local hospital, Chase Farm, not least because before the general election my constituents were joined by the Prime Minister on their “Save our A and E” campaign and given assurances, and unsurprisingly they and I feel utterly let down?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s disappointment. We said before the election that there would be a moratorium on such closures, and there was a moratorium. That case was re-examined in light of the four criteria set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. He asked the borough council to see whether an alternative configuration could be developed, but that was not the case, and an independent review showed there were real safety issues in the current configuration. Against that background, difficult decisions were taken, but I understand that those decisions have the support of local doctors.

Tom Blenkinsop: After lots of time, effort and money, the Department for Work and Pensions central complaints champions have come up with, and circulated to all DWP outlets, the groundbreaking formula that a complaint
	“is an expression of dissatisfaction about the service”
	received. Please will the Leader of the House inquire of his DWP colleagues what this exercise has cost? Would not the money have been better spent on staff and on the pensions of the people working in benefits offices, who are delivering the service to those who have been made unemployed by this Tory Government, with unemployment now at levels not seen since the ’80s?

George Young: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman’s account of that incident. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Andrew Stephenson: Will the Leader of the House grant us a debate on banking and specifically the Vickers report, so that we can discuss why the Labour party continues to oppose real reform and instead supports the failed system?

George Young: My hon. Friend will have heard the Chancellor’s statement earlier this week. The Government are now examining the report in detail and we want to keep the House updated on its implementation. We welcome the report and have given our support to its central recommendations. An initial response will be given by the end of the year. We were all pleased, if somewhat surprised, to hear the shadow Chancellor apologise on Tuesday for being partly responsible for the failed system of regulation under the previous Government.

Tom Greatrex: May we then have a debate on bank charges, following the news this morning that both RBS and Clydesdale bank are, for the first time in their history, to charge credit unions for banking services, so that we can make our view clear that banks should not pass on their charges to vulnerable organisations and customers in the current circumstances?

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. One of the Vickers report’s recommendations is that it should be much easier to switch accounts from one bank to another. I therefore hope that if a bank raises its charges, it will be easier for people to transfer their custom to a bank that offers a more competitive service.

Jake Berry: Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the independence of British newspapers? Yesterday while perusing his copy of the Morning Star, he may have read, beneath the headline “Could You Be Any More Wet”, the TUC’s reaction to the Leader of the Opposition described as “heckling, derisive laughter” and “deflation”. Given that dramatic about-turn, may we have a debate on that, too?

George Young: I am afraid that I did not read yesterday’s Morning Star, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing me with an abbreviated edition. The ownership of newspapers was the peg on which he hung his question, and that is a matter for the Leveson inquiry.

Barry Sheerman: May I associate myself with the tributes to Malcolm Jack? Not only has he been a brilliant, innovative, modernising Clerk, but he shares with me the privilege of having graduated from the London School of Economics.
	On our return after the recess, may we have an urgent debate on what is going on in Iceland? It still owes this country billions of pounds, which it refuses to pay to local authorities and individuals, and it is becoming quite a rogue state in that it is colluding with Japan in killing minkes and other whales and is now making arrangements with the Chinese Government to exploit the natural resources that are the inheritance of us all.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman, using some fairly stark language about Iceland, has raised a number of issues, some of which fall to the Treasury, while others, I suspect, fall to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I will raise them with my colleagues. I am unsure whether there is any direct action that we can take on any debts of the Iceland Government, but he will know that there are some consequentials from the failure of the Kaupthing bank.

Jeremy Lefroy: Agriculture and food processing industries play a vital role in Staffordshire and exports from these sectors are increasing year on year. May we have a debate on the contribution they can and will make to growth and employment, provided that that is not impeded by unnecessary regulation, of which we see more looming across the channel?

George Young: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend’s request. He might like to present himself to the salon of the Backbench Business Committee to suggest such a debate. We will support British farming as much as we can and encourage sustainable food production, so that we can have a secure, environmentally sustainable and healthy supply of food with improved standards of animal welfare.

Nicholas Dakin: Sadly, the number of assaults on NHS staff appears to be on the increase. May we have a debate about how we might ensure the safety and security of health workers?

George Young: I deplore any assaults on those who work for the NHS. In the first instance, it would be for the local NHS trust to take up any such problems and improve security. If the hon. Gentleman can pass on to me specific examples from his constituency, I will raise them with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary and see whether there is any role for the Government to play in reducing the number of attacks.

Philip Hollobone: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to see that the Backbench Business Committee has scheduled two e-petitions debates, one on the Hillsborough disaster and another on the response to the riots. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a golden opportunity to show due courtesy and respect to the hundreds of thousands of petitioners by setting a precedent and having a Cabinet Minister present to respond to both debates?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that subject. As I have said before, there have been occasions when a Cabinet Minister has responded to a debate in Westminster Hall. I will certainly pass on to the relevant Minister my hon. Friend’s specific request for the debate on Hillsborough, so that he is aware of the feeling in the House that it would be appropriate for him to respond.

Madeleine Moon: On 9 June, the Leader of the House agreed to use his considerable influence to seek a decision about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal, as we were then awaiting the decision of the medals review. I was told that it was hoped that there would be a decision by the summer, but the summer has come and gone and my questions are being bounced between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office, leading me to wonder if the “Circumlocution Office” is again operating. May we have a statement immediately after the House returns in October on what is happening in that medals review and when we can expect the brave veterans concerned to be able to wear their medal with pride?

George Young: I understand the hon. Lady’s impatience to get a decision, but the summer has not, I hope, entirely gone—some of us have lingering hopes there might be a few days of sunshine left. I will,
	however, raise the issue with the relevant Minister and see whether we can expedite a decision, as I know the process has gone on for quite some time.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. We are short of time. May I appeal to colleagues to ask single, short—one sentence—business questions of the Leader of the House? This would be a dramatic breakthrough and of benefit to the House as a whole. I know that a fine example will be set by the hon. Member for New Forest East.

Julian Lewis: I was afraid that you were going to pick me, Mr Speaker. May we have a debate on the importance of in-patient beds in acute mental health facilities, given that those at Woodhaven hospital in my constituency face the possibility of closure, unless people write in urgently to the consultation that is under way?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. As he says, a consultation process is under way to which I urge him to respond, although I am sure that he has already done so. I know that others will have heard our exchange and that if they share his concern, they also will write to the NHS trust.

Mr Speaker: I am pleased to say that they will also have heard the single sentence from the hon. Member for New Forest East, and I feel sure that they will have appreciated it.

Frank Roy: Last week, on a visit to my local Remploy factory in Wishaw, I met some disabled people who are genuinely terrified that they are about to lose their jobs and see their factory close. Will the Leader of the House give time for a debate on that very serious subject?

George Young: Of course I understand the concern of anybody who is confronted with the possible loss of their job. I will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Andrea Leadsom: In the light of the Prime Minister’s renewed commitment to strengthening families and the fact that the Northamptonshire Parent Infant Project has now opened in my constituency, may we have a debate on the crucial importance of the foundation years and early intervention in families who are struggling to bond with their new babies?

George Young: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that she will apply for an Adjournment debate, where we might be able to debate the matter at more length than the Speaker is likely to allow me now.

Denis MacShane: May we have a serious debate on the boundary changes? We have no intermediate levels of government in our country, we are reducing the number of elected people and we are increasing the power of unelected officials from Brussels, from Whitehall and from town halls. We are taking away the voice of the citizens of Britain. This is a serious diminution of parliamentary democracy.

George Young: What the right hon. Gentleman proposes would be totally irregular. It is for the Boundary Commission to decide our boundaries. The matter will be debated at the end of the process, when the order comes before the House.

Andrew Bridgen: May we have an urgent debate on controlling the deficit? The Government have clearly set out their spending plans, but such a debate might allow us to clarify how they compare with the plans of the Labour party, which in government did so much to create the deficit we inherited.

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. It is worth reminding the House that the reductions in public expenditure this year are only £2 billion more than what was planned by the outgoing Labour Government.

Michael Connarty: May I ask the Leader of the House to use his good offices to encourage the relevant Minister in the Department responsible for social inclusion to have a debate on the human rights of the deaf community in the UK, instead of leaving it to the Minister responsible for culture and communications when deaf people are denied access to video relay and use of British sign language?

George Young: I understand the concern, I will raise it with the appropriate Minister and ask that the hon. Gentleman be sent a written reply.

Tony Baldry: May we have an early debate on the Government’s planning proposals, to give us all the opportunity to dispel the inaccurate myths being promoted by the Campaign to Protect Rural England and some other organisations, and to make it clear to the country that the Government’s planning proposals will substantially enhance the ability of and opportunity for local councillors and local people to affect what happens in their own areas?

George Young: My hon. Friend served with me as a Planning Minister—

Tony Baldry: Four years.

George Young: Indeed, for four years. He therefore has some insight into the planning process. I indicated earlier that I would welcome a broader debate on planning policy so that the myths can be laid to rest.

Chris Bryant: Will the Leader of the House set aside time every week for “PMT”? As I understand it, his defence of the Prime Minister is that when the Prime Minister says something, for us to understand the statistic we just need to know the timeline he is applying to it. If the Prime Minister had a “Prime Minister’s Timeline” session every week, we would be able to understand that when he says, “Growth in the UK is bigger than in the United States of America”, he means that that was so under a Labour Government.

George Young: The short answer is no.

Matthew Offord: In 2004, the Wood report said that many British companies were at a disadvantage because of European Union procurement laws. Bearing that in mind, and given the disastrous procurement by the previous Labour Government of the Thameslink rolling stock contract, may we have a debate to address that, so that we can really have British jobs for British people?

George Young: I hear what my hon. Friend has said. That matter was raised in Transport questions. We are reviewing the procurement rules to see whether British companies can compete on a level playing field with others when such contracts come up again.

Mr Speaker: Just in case I was unclear earlier, I ought to say that at no stage has there been anything wrong, irregular or in any way objectionable about the length of the Leader of the House’s replies. I was referring purely to the questions.

David Nuttall: May we have a debate on the “Review into the Needs of Families Bereaved by Homicide” report issued by the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, so that this House can consider how its recommendations should be dealt with?

George Young: We are grateful to Louise Casey for producing the report and we all applaud the work of victim support schemes in our constituencies. I would welcome such a debate. I remind the House that, following the report’s publication, we have made £500,000 available to take forward some of the immediate recommendations.

Clive Betts: May I ask for a debate on the criteria used by the Boundary Commission in its review and the inherent instability built into the system for the future? A city such as Sheffield has wards of 14,000 people, so only a small amount of house building in a new constituency such as mine is likely to mean that in five years’ time, there will be a knock-on effect in Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley, because the ward size in Sheffield is such that it will not be possible to carry out further reorganisation there. This compete reorganisation is bad for democratic accountability.

George Young: I repeat what I said earlier: it would be quite wrong of this House to get involved in the detailed boundaries that will be set out under the review process. The place for the hon. Gentleman to make his representations is not here; it is to the Boundary Commission.

Andrew Murrison: May we have a debate on attempts by the EU High Representative for foreign affairs and security policy to force through the creation of a permanent military headquarters for the European Union, using the artifice of permanent structured co-operation under the Lisbon treaty and contrary to the wishes of this Government?

George Young: If it is contrary to the wishes of this Government, I very much hope it will not happen. There will be an opportunity at the next Defence questions
	to raise the matter, but in the meantime I will share my hon. Friend’s concern with the Secretary of State for Defence.

Michael McCann: I have evidence that Scottish Enterprise, Scotland’s economic development agency, is behaving in a manner and using practices that may damage sustainable economic growth in my constituency—that evidence has been brought to me by constituents. In addition, it would appear to suggest that connected, highly questionable planning practices are also taking place within the Scottish Government, which could also damage economic development in my constituency. I brought those matters to the attention of Sir Peter Housden, the permanent secretary to the Scottish Government, and reminded him of his responsibilities under the civil service code. I have also called for an independent inquiry into these matters, but all I have had in response is obfuscation, diversionary tactics and a point-blank refusal by a senior civil servant to look into my evidence and complaints—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. When the Speaker said one question, he did not mean one that lasted five minutes.

Michael McCann: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: That was the question.

George Young: It sounded from the question as though this is a matter that has been devolved to the Scottish Government. None the less, I will raise the issue that the hon. Gentleman has just touched on with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to see whether there is a role for the Westminster Government to play.

Alun Cairns: A number of my constituents and 20,000 others across the United Kingdom have lost significant sums in the Arch Cru investment fund as a result of improper regulation. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on this subject, so that they can hear the issues being aired and, I hope, demand compensation?

George Young: I commend the campaign being run by my hon. Friend. Many MPs have received letters from constituents who have been affected by that failure. As he may know, the Financial Services Authority is investigating the case, but I will raise his concerns with Treasury Ministers. Although I cannot promise a debate, I hope that I can promise him a letter.

Mark Lazarowicz: For the third time in a year, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), has withdrawn proposed regulations on ship-to-ship oil transfer in British waters. Given that the reason for the latest delay appears to be a wish to comply with Government policy on simplifying regulation, will the Leader of the House intervene to cut the red tape and help the Minister, if
	necessary by providing time in which legislation can be brought to the House, so that we can resolve this matter on which we have been waiting for action for almost two years?

George Young: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to raise that issue just now in Transport questions, but I will raise it with the Secretary of State and see whether we can cut through the red tape.

Christopher Pincher: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) in asking for a debate on the proposed trade union strikes, so that the public have an opportunity to see where this House, including the shadow Chancellor, stands—on the side of the British public, or on the side of the trade union barons who are intent on disrupting our public services and damaging our economy?

George Young: I would welcome such a debate, but I cannot provide the time. My hon. Friend will know that the basis for the discussions between the Government and the trade unions is the report Lord Hutton produced earlier this year, which proposes a fairer balance between, on the one hand, the beneficiaries of public sector pensions and, on the other hand, taxpayers. Further discussions are due to take place next Tuesday. I hope the trade unions will respond, and in the meantime I think that it would be quite wrong to go ahead with industrial action.

Bob Blackman: Given that Harrow council has issued a tender document for the procurement of bailiff services that requires the successful tenderer to pay back to the council 10% of the fee they obtain from the person from whom they collect the debt, may we have an urgent debate on the use of bailiffs, the services provided and the fees allowed, so that this House can express its view on such unfair practices?

George Young: The Government have given a commitment to provide better protection against aggressive bailiffs, so I can offer some encouragement on that part of my hon. Friend’s question. On the first part, I will ask Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers whether there is any irregularity in Harrow council seeking a kick-back from any contract that it lets.

Kris Hopkins: The Leader of the House will no doubt have been shocked as I was to hear that two senior members of the Ulster Unionist party have been summoned to Orange Order disciplinary proceedings after they attended the funeral of the murdered Catholic police officer, Ronan Kerr. May we have a short debate in which all Members of this House can demonstrate our support for Tom Elliott and Danny Kennedy and recognise the responsible way in which they have offered leadership to that community?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I cannot provide time for a debate but I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State both my hon. Friend’s remarks and the support that he had from other hon. Members in the House.

Point of Order

Diana Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 30 June, I wrote to the Prime Minister about serious concerns I had about an answer he gave in Prime Minister’s questions about the protection of children from paedophiles under the Protection of Freedoms Bill. Three months on, I have not yet received a response and I wondered whether you could do anything to encourage the Prime Minister to respond to me, as the Bill will be before the House when we return in October.

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates that that is not a matter for the Chair and is therefore not a point of order. Those on the Treasury Benches will have heard her comments and I am sure that the Prime Minister, like all Ministers, will want to give prompt replies to correspondence from Members of this House. If she wishes to take it further, she could go to the Table Office to find out how else she can ensure that she receives a prompt reply.

ROYAL ASSENT

Dawn Primarolo: I Before we move to the main business, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011
	Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[31st Allotted Day]

Food Security and Famine Prevention (Africa)

Dawn Primarolo: Before I call Amber Rudd to move the motion, I inform the House that after the opening speeches from each side there will be a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions in this debate, as a large number of Members wish to participate.

Amber Rudd: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the contribution of the British public, via the Disasters Emergency Committee, and the British Government to the famine relief effort in the Horn of Africa; recognises that emergency food relief must always be the last resort and that improving the productivity and resilience of domestic agricultural systems in Africa must be a priority for the UK and the international donor community; and calls upon the Government to increase its focus on improving awareness around nutrition and agriculture in the developing world to support farmers and secure greater international food resilience and to champion the welfare of those in the developing world in the discussions on food price volatility at the upcoming G20 Summit in Cannes.
	The motion was tabled by me and the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and is supported by 30 other Members—it is truly a cross-party motion supported by Members from throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that that reflects the seriousness of the subject matter and the settled desire of the House to have the opportunity to debate it.
	One might think that things had improved in the horn of Africa if one only followed the media, but unfortunately they have not. The food crisis has, I am afraid, got much worse. Last week, the UN announced that a sixth region of Somalia has entered the famine. There are now 750,000 people at risk and an estimated $2.5 billion is required to prevent that starvation escalating, but there is currently a $950 million shortfall without even estimating the needs beyond December 2011.
	Despite such uncertainties, the UK has led the international response. Despite the many economic difficulties we all have at home, the UK Government have led and I believe that they should be commended for that. They have done what they set out to do and have not tried to balance the books on the backs of the poorest, and they have contributed £188 million. The UK public’s generosity through individual gifts reflects their support for the Government in this generosity. By the end of last week, they had given £57 million, which is greater than the amounts given by the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Switzerland put together. The UK Government have a responsibility, however, both to the general public, who have given so much, and to the citizens of the horn of Africa, who have so little, to ensure that that money really delivers.
	Famines are political. We all know that the immediate response to a famine must be food, aid and shelter, but we should also look hard at what else can be done
	earlier on. It is not the lack of food but the fact that some people cannot get access to the food that causes the famine. The main cause of food security in Africa is war and conflict. Famine is about so much more than food: it is about a famine of education, democracy, health, transport and so many other items. The food famine becomes a symptom of that vast failure. The last famine in Europe was the Irish potato famine, which was a failure of politics as much as a failure of the agriculture that season.
	I believe that we in this House should encourage and support the efforts towards conflict prevention through the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and any Government Department, and we can work with the organisations that are already settled in such societies to try to do that. I am aware that external interventions in fragile states are fraught with risk. We know that they can make things worse, but we must nevertheless be bold and try always to support good governance so that we can try to promote the emergence of civil society.
	As the Nobel prize winner Professor Amartya Sen famously noted, there are no famines in democracies that have a free press. We can and should help support organisations that help with building a free society—that is the true version of early prevention of a famine. We also must not lose sight of the help we can give towards building agricultural resilience to famine. Agriculture is the lifeblood of the national economies of the horn of Africa. In 2009, 50% of the gross domestic product of Ethiopia came from agriculture, and the equivalent figure was 22% in Kenya and 60% in Somalia. The majority of the labour force in those countries work in rural areas and 80% are smallholders working less than 2 hectares. When we consider that the Palace of Westminster covers 3 hectares, we can begin to get a feeling of what a small area they have to work in and how precarious their living is. We should try to focus our support on the organisations working with those small farmers and micro-scale producers who can produce a much greater yield than the large monoculture farms. Seven out of 10 of the world’s hungry are members of those small rural households.
	The UK public, generous as they have been, expect results from UK aid. I welcome once more the huge international effort, of which the UK has been so supportive, to provide immediate famine relief, which is saving lives day by day, but we must also focus on long-term agricultural resilience, helping communities to improve their yield. If we do that—if we can help them build up their own incomes—we also help them towards building up their own civil societies. A community who have a surplus can invest in their own education and in their own health service, so we have the twin benefit of helping with the production of agriculture and helping communities create their own incomes, thereby building, from the bottom up, the civil society that can then provide the stability of a democracy that is less likely to go into famine.
	We all know that this is complex. When we talk about famine, people start listing, as I have, its many different elements. We must not let the complexity of the subject put us off. We must continue putting our efforts into prevention. We must try to work
	with the famine as it is at the moment, but above all we must try to make sure that it does not happen again by supporting people so that their own civil society can emerge.

Heidi Alexander: I am pleased to open the debate along with the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us time to have this very important debate.
	The famine in Somalia and the widespread emergency that exists across the region is the result of many failures. The failure of rainfall is often cited on the news, but just as important, if not more so, are the failures of Governments, both regionally and internationally, the failure to address the underlying causes of famine and food insecurity, and the failure to act in time and in a manner that prevents people from not having enough food. In Somalia, of course, there is also the fundamental failure of the state and the absence of peace and stability for the best part of two decades.
	The UK has undoubtedly taken a leadership role in responding to the current crisis. The public’s generosity should be applauded, as should the Government’s contribution to the relief effort and the incredible work of our British charities. However, if we want to consign famine and chronic hunger in Africa to history, we have to ask ourselves some tough questions. Do national and international Governments respond quickly enough to emerging crises, and are we doing enough now to prevent further deaths in the horn of Africa? As the hon. Lady asked, have we done enough to boost small-scale agriculture production and support rural livelihoods in our international development work in Africa? Have we been too complacent about food price volatility, commodity speculation, biofuel land-grabs and food export bans? I hope that there will be answers to some of those questions during the debate.
	I was 10 when I first saw TV images of dying children in Ethiopia. A quarter of a century has passed since then, and it saddens and angers me that yet again we see those scenes on our televisions. The crisis did not start when we first saw the reports in the news; the first warning signs came as early as last August. I have questions about the role of African Governments in facing up to and addressing emerging crises and about their capacity to respond. One NGO worker recently told me that in some parts of Africa they cannot mention the F-word and the C-word—famine and cholera—because the Governments simply do not like to hear them. Denying that the problem exists is not the way to stop it happening.
	I also ask myself why, despite early-warning mechanisms’ being in place, the international humanitarian system waited until people were dying before it responded on the scale that was needed. Surely there needs to be more flexibility in the way that centrally held emergency funds can be released. I know that the report of Lord Ashdown’s humanitarian emergency response review underlines the importance of anticipation, but anticipation must be followed by action if it is to have any significance. I note the reference in the report published by DFID today to slow-onset crises and how we might better respond to those.
	That leads me to the situation now. We know that 750,000 people are at risk of dying in the next few months alone. That is the equivalent of a city the size of Leeds. Thousands of people, predominantly women and children, are turning up at already swollen refugee camps every week. We must find a way to address ongoing needs—health and sanitation as well as food needs. As I understand it, many of the humanitarian grants that have funded the relief operation last for only six months, and some start to expire as early as October. We need a plan.
	I could speak for longer about the current situation, but I know that the Secretary of State is here to provide an update and I want to turn to the issue of how we prevent such catastrophes from happening again. Last week, the United Nations Secretary-General called for the crisis in the horn of Africa to be turned into an opportunity. Among other things he called for investment in sustainable livelihoods; he is entirely right. One of the best ways to do that would be for the international community to stop paying lip service to the idea of supporting rural livelihoods in Africa—to the smallholder farmers and pastoralists—and get on and do it. We also need to have hard, grown-up conversations with African Governments about their expenditure priorities.
	Some 70% of the population in sub-Saharan Africa are dependent on farming. When I visited Kenya last year I met many families who told me that their livelihood was their land but often their land did not produce enough for them to live on. They are sub-subsistence farmers. The sad thing is that it does not have to be that way. There are many brilliant projects run by charities such as Farm Africa, in which small interventions—better seeds, appropriate fertilisers, crossbreeding of livestock and basic knowledge about planting and irrigation—produce hugely increased yields and improve the resilience of local populations. The challenge is to scale up those initiatives, to extend their reach and to get all African Governments investing properly in agricultural extension services and appropriate research and development.

Alison McGovern: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case about what can be done at a micro-agriculture level to support those farmers. Does she agree that the success of that absolutely depends on UK Government leadership in gaining access to markets for those farmers?

Heidi Alexander: I certainly do, and I shall come to some of the wider international issues later in my speech.
	If we are serious about addressing these problems, the UK needs to look at how we prioritise our overseas aid expenditure, setting a standard for other donors in respect of investment in agriculture. Between 2007 and 2009, DFID gave on average $32 million per year to agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa—1.8% of our total bilateral aid in the region. When we increase our aid budget in 2013, what will we spend the additional money on? How much will go into supporting smallholder farmers and pastoralist communities? I have seen research that suggests that of the 14 operational or summary plans publicly available from DFID for African countries, six make no reference at all to agriculture or farmers, three make passing reference, two refer to food security in relation to humanitarian spend and only three—Rwanda, Zimbabwe and Mozambique—have any significant focus on agriculture and farming.

Jeremy Corbyn: I compliment my hon. Friend on her speech. She mentioned land purchases by western farming interests and other wealthy countries—some in the far east, in Asia. Does she not think that there has to be some change in the mechanism so that it is impossible for wealthy countries to buy and take very valuable land which they then keep for themselves and for private food exports to themselves, leaving the people surrounding them in Africa in the very vulnerable and dangerous situation in which they are now?

Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I am not an expert on these issues, but I think that the international system needs to change. It seems completely wrong that huge amounts of land in parts of Africa are growing crops that go into our cars rather than food that goes into the mouths of the people who live in those areas.
	Before I move on to some of the wider international issues, I take the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State if he might update us on some of the things that are already under way in the UK in terms of our contribution to food security. In L’Aquila in 2008, we made a number of commitments. When will the Secretary of State publish the data on disbursements for 2010-ll? I know that the Department claims to be on track, but there are those who would like to see the evidence of that money being spent. Will he also tell us if and when a decision will be taken about investing the funds of the global agriculture and food security programme?
	I want Africa to have the chance to realise its potential—

Roger Williams: As the hon. Lady mentioned L’Aquila, does she agree that the UK claims to be on track for the disbursements, but other countries, such as Russia, France and the United States, are way behind what they promised?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I gently remind the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) that the Backbench Business Committee recommended eight minutes for her speech and that of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). We are now overshooting, so perhaps she will bear that in mind. I know that she has taken interventions, but many hon. Members are waiting to speak so perhaps she could draw to a conclusion.

Heidi Alexander: My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was trying to accommodate interventions. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) makes a good point.
	Let me conclude by moving on to the international issues. Oxfam has recently produced an incredible report, “Growing a Better Future”, setting out the serious challenges that exist within the world’s economic system that prevent the poorest people in the poorest countries from accessing the food they need. We have already talked about the purchase of land for biofuels and there is also the issue of excessive commodity speculation increasing volatility in food prices, and those issues need to be addressed. I know that it is not completely in the gift of the Secretary of State or the UK, but let us think about how we champion those issues in discussions such as those at the G20 in Cannes.
	I have covered a number of issues this afternoon, but I conclude by saying that our world is becoming ever more interconnected, and the fears of some of my constituents about immigration will be addressed in the long term only if the developing world becomes a place where the local population want to remain. I can understand why a family living on the outskirts of Nairobi, having fled the countryside because they cannot feed their children, may want a better life. The inequalities that exist between the developed and developing world must be addressed. We have a responsibility to do so and, more importantly, it is countries such as ours that have the power to act. The scale of the crisis in the horn of Africa is a wake-up call. I hope that we rise to the challenge.

Andrew Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) on two extremely good speeches on the vital subject that the House is debating.
	The motion has three specific points. I want to say a few words about all three, but I start by acknowledging that the motion mentions the generosity of the British public through the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. Throughout the country, people have supported that, and nearly £60 million has been raised. That, together with the efforts of the British Government and other Governments around the world, seeks to address the crisis in the horn of Africa and to stop a disaster becoming a catastrophe.
	The House will be aware of what is happening in the horn of Africa. The rains have failed. Enormous numbers of people are moving first from the centre of Somalia down to Mogadishu and then from Somalia out across the borders into Kenya and Ethiopia. The Dollo-Ado camps in Ethiopia now contain 120,000 Somalis, 80,000 of whom have arrived there in the last few weeks. In Mogadishu, which I visited just three weeks ago, camps have sprung up all over that city. The World Food Programme is today feeding some 327,000 refugees there, in particular in therapeutic feeding.
	In Dadaab, which I visited earlier in the summer—I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has been there recently, too—huge numbers of people have come across the border into Kenya. I saw a sight that one rarely sees in Africa—large numbers of mothers and their children waiting in the early morning in complete silence. I was able to talk to some of them; they told awful stories about being attacked and beaten as they came with their children out of Somalia. Many had lost children on that march, and their feet were cut to pieces by that long march. I pay tribute to the Kenyan Government who are housing 430,000 people in Dadaab, the largest refugee camp in the world, which was built originally for 90,000.
	I also visited Wajir, where I was able to see the brilliant work that has been done by British non-governmental organisations—in particular Save the Children, but many others—in trying to cope with the crisis. I acknowledge and pay tribute to my shadow, the right hon. and learned Lady, for the way in which
	she, too, has emphasised the importance of placing help for girls and women at the centre of what we are doing—they are in the forefront of the crisis—and for the work that she has done in ensuring that this issue stays at the top of our international agenda.
	The people in those camps are in many ways the lucky ones. Inside Somalia we are probably reaching about 1.2 million of the 3 million people who are in serious jeopardy at this time. Those who have followed these things will have seen that the global acute malnutrition and the serious acute malnutrition rates in Somalia are horrific. We have not seen such rates since the 1992 famine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye made clear, it is not often starvation that kills people who are caught up in famines, for the reasons that she eloquently set out; it is disease. When the rains come, the immune systems of large numbers of people, already shredded by hunger, will not be able to withstand the waterborne diseases that will cut like a knife through that very vulnerable population. Cholera is already endemic in Somalia and Mogadishu, and measles and malaria will also affect huge numbers of very vulnerable people when the rains come.

Malcolm Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend use his considerable leadership in his capacity as Secretary of State, within the international community, to get to the root of this issue? We want to deliver humanitarian relief now, but if we had spent half the money that we will now have to spend in advance, we would have avoided the problem and people would not have been in stress and dying. Spending money in advance rather than waiting for the crisis is surely the way we will have to deal with this in future.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, which I am coming to directly.
	Britain has engaged vigorously over recent months in addressing all these issues, and I pay tribute to the outstanding team that Britain has in Nairobi, across Departments of the British Government, working with our partners and providing real leadership and advice across the international system.

Laurence Robertson: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the emergency situation, which he has described in great detail, I congratulate him on his early and substantial response, but I am concerned about the details of a written answer that he gave me in which he suggests that the regional financial shortfalls in the horn amount to $918 million. In spite of our own considerable contribution, that is a very worrying figure. I know that my right hon. Friend is working hard to encourage the international community to contribute more, but is there anything else that can be done?

Andrew Mitchell: I will come to that point directly. Let me set out what we in Britain are doing to help. First, in Somalia, Britain will be vaccinating more than 1.3 million children against measles and 670,000 children against polio, and providing mosquito nets for 160,000 families. During the last week, we think that we have managed to reach an additional 40,000 families inside Somalia, and 10,000 tonnes of food to treat and prevent moderate malnutrition have now arrived in the country. In Kenya, we are providing clean water for more than 300,000 people in Dadaab, and in northern
	Kenya more generally, we are helping 100,000 who have received 600 tonnes of UK-funded food aid during the last month.
	We have been working in Ethiopia for many years—this relates directly to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce)—and it is for that reason that since 1992 the prevalence of malnutrition has fallen by about 50%. That shows the difference between working in a country where development can take place and Somalia, where it is very difficult. In Ethiopia we are feeding more than 2.4 million people. We recently provided 50 tonnes of seeds and 60 tonnes of fertilizer, and we are helping to vaccinate 300,000 livestock, which is important in enabling people to continue with their livelihoods when the famine is over. We are working extremely hard to persuade others to support that effort, with some success. Around £400 million has been pledged for Somalia since 1 July, and I will be working on that, along with other Ministers, at next week’s meetings of the United Nations and the World Bank. Progress is being made, but insufficient progress.
	I come now to the central point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, who chairs the International Development Committee, and which is dealt with in the final part of the motion: the importance of trying to ensure that these crises are addressed upstream and that food insecurity is replaced by food security.

Joan Ruddock: The Secretary of State referred earlier to women as the prime victims of the famine and rightly paid tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). As he is coming to this passage in his speech, will he ensure that DFID continues the work that we did on recognising that women make up the majority of food producers in Africa and the need to involve women where they often have few rights and decision-making powers in their communities? Will he ensure that his Department puts women at the heart of all its policies in Africa and continues to do so?

Andrew Mitchell: I can vigorously reassure the right hon. Lady that that is the case. One cannot begin to understand development unless one realises the importance of putting children and women right at the centre of everything one does.

Lyn Brown: The population of Ethiopia has grown fourfold in the past 50 years. The populations of Somalia and Kenya have grown threefold and fivefold respectively. Between one quarter and one third of the married women in that region would like to avoid or delay pregnancy. I understand that there are an estimated 76 million unwanted births a year. Will access to modern contraception be part of the Government’s plan?

Andrew Mitchell: It absolutely is. I wrote to the hon. Lady about that in June. She is entirely right: it is outrageous that less than 25% of women in sub-Saharan Africa have access to contraception. A prime part of the Government’s development policy is to try to ensure that up to 10 million couples who currently do not have access to contraception get it.
	I was talking about the importance of food security and of people being able to feed themselves. At the end of last week, I visited an extremely important project, run by Britain and the World Food Programme, that seeks to build food security in Karamoja in northern Uganda. It encapsulates the old proverb, “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach him to fish and he will be able to feed himself.” We are engaged in a project that hitherto has spent £28 per person on securing food aid. Over the next three years we will spend £33 per person. As I saw for myself, that food security is developing well. In 2009 more than 1 million people in Karamoja were receiving food aid and the region was suffering from deep food insecurity, but by the end of this year we believe the figure will be below 140,000.
	In looking at that programme we saw all the things that need to happen, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon knows so well. We saw effective irrigation, the harvesting of water through reservoirs, families growing food for themselves and market traders turning up on the sites where that food is being grown and buying the surplus. We saw feeder roads developing and warehouses springing up, which is very important. That is the way ahead to ensure that deep food insecurity is tackled. That is what we have been doing in Ethiopia, and the approach has helped to ensure that Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda are not now experiencing famine.

Jeremy Corbyn: I compliment the Secretary of State on visiting Somalia and Mogadishu and on the work he has been doing there in particular. The situation in Somalia is clearly very difficult and dangerous. Did his visit give him any hope that there will be greater political stability and physical security for refugees that will enable them to return home once the famine is over and resume their farming businesses and practices?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the key issue: the deep insecurity and ungoverned space in Somalia. I underline our strong admiration and support for the brave people who go in to try to deliver life-saving aid and support there. An announcement was made last week by the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia on political developments and their intention to hold elections of some sort in a year’s time. He will also know of the work done in the Kampala accords earlier this year, not least by President Museveni. I do not hide from the hon. Gentleman the very great difficulties in achieving what he underlined needs to be achieved. All this emphasises the importance of the work on resilience. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East mentioned the humanitarian and emergency response review that we commissioned, which was carried out so well by Lord Ashdown. The Government have adopted all the points that he made in that report, lock, stock and barrel, and in some cases we will go further.

Zac Goldsmith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very often the world’s poorest people who are most dependent on the free services provided by ecosystems and that therefore, economic development of any sort that undermines those ecosystems or is un-green will not only not help those people, but actively harm them? Will he continue to put an increasing focus, as I know he is, on tackling the environmental causes of some of the base poverty we see in the world today?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Had he been with me in Karamoja last week, I think it would have warmed the cockles of his heart to see the work being done by the World Food Programme and Britain specifically to address those concerns.
	I must draw my remarks to a close. I wish to end by making four points. There are 400,000 people, mainly children, in danger of dying as a result of the famine in Somalia. Britain has set out clearly what needs to be done. People across all parts of our country, as well as the Government, have given their money and support. We cannot put a price on a life, but we can put a price on saving one. It is time for other countries to recognise that fact and reach deeper into their pockets.

Harriet Harman: I would like to thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) for tabling the motion. We strongly support the terms of the motion. The House obviously wanted the opportunity to debate the terrible suffering in the horn of Africa, which is why so many Members have attended the debate to speak.
	I very much endorse what has been said by the Secretary of State. As he told the House, he has been to the horn of Africa and to Mogadishu, and I pay tribute to him for that—it was a brave thing to do. I imagine that he was advised absolutely not to go there. He is the first Minister to go there since 1992. I really give him credit for that. I also pay tribute to the tremendous work of the Department for International Development and our high commissions in the region. They are doing important work for people who face such terrible suffering.
	When Islamic Relief took me out to see its inspiring work in the area, I saw for myself the effect of the worst drought for 60 years. It is an area where the land is not bare. There is abundant vegetation, but the trees and shrubs are all parched because of the drought. The area should be teeming with cattle, goats, camels, donkeys and giraffes, but instead the shrubs and trees are white and grey and everywhere the skeletons of cattle and goats can be seen. I saw a huge, majestic giraffe lying dead at the side of the road. The women we met in Wajir in the north-east of Kenya told us how one by one their animals had fallen victim to starvation because of the drought. Their herds had dwindled almost to nothing—herds that had provided them with their livelihood, milk, meat and income. They do not have any money left, and they and their children do not have enough to eat, but although the women and children are so thin, they are not starving, because they are getting food, such as that I saw being given out by Islamic Relief with the support of DFID. Let us make no mistake: our aid and the work of our aid agencies is saving lives. I pay tribute not only to Islamic Relief, but as the Secretary of State did, to Save the Children, Oxfam, World Vision and the multinational organisations such as UNICEF and UNHCR, to which we contribute. They are alleviating suffering and saving lives, and every person in this country who contributed to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal should be really proud of what the money they have given is doing.

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. and learned Friend represents in her constituency, like I do in mine, a considerable Somali community. Will she take this
	opportunity to acknowledge the huge contribution that the diaspora are making either by giving aid through DEC or by sending aid directly home through mosques, community associations and all the others? They are showing a real sense of solidarity.

Harriet Harman: I absolutely agree, and that was going to be my very next point. Not only should everybody who gives to the DEC feel proud of what their money contributes to, but so should every one of the many members of the African diaspora, from Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia, who not only work hard in this country and support their families here, but send remittances back to their country of origin. We should be proud of what they do, too; it makes an enormous difference.

Malcolm Bruce: The right hon. and learned Lady is making an important point. Does she agree that the huge contribution that individuals have made to the disaster relief fund, plus the actions of her own Government, give the lie to those who say that the British people do not want their aid budget maintained or their commitment to the UN target achieved?

Harriet Harman: Absolutely. Everyone should be proud of the work that our Government, through DFID, are doing, and that is why I support so strongly their promise to maintain our commitment to increase aid to 0.7% of gross national income by 2013. I know that they will do everything they can to step up their efforts to get other countries to do the same. We are doing our bit; so must other countries.
	The drought has hit a wide area of the horn of Africa, but its impact on people is dramatically different in different areas. For example, in Ethiopia—and I underline the points that the Secretary of State made—for a number of years our aid and the work of our aid agencies with the Government of Ethiopia has put in place measures to protect against the impact of drought. They have prepared systems of what they call cash transfers—systems to give money to people whose crops have failed and cannot feed themselves; they have stockpiled food ready for such people; and they have built roads so that remote areas can be reached even when there is drought. Although those people are suffering hardship, they are not starving. They are able to stay on their land and in their villages, and they are not forced to abandon them and flee, but work will have to go on, and, as the Secretary of State said, the danger is not over when the rains come, because they can bring with them cholera and malaria.
	Ethiopia shows that aid works, but it is a tragically different story for Somalia, which shows that, because of conflict, when people do not have access to aid and there is no preparation for drought, people are left totally at the mercy of drought. The best that they can hope for is to flee their lands and become refugees; the worst is to see their children die of starvation. With preparation and with humanitarian aid, people can cope with drought, but they cannot cope with drought and conflict, and that has caused hundreds of thousands of people to flee Somalia for the Dadaab camp in north-east Kenya. The numbers are absolutely overwhelming. A camp that was built for no more than 90,000 people now has more than 430,000 and is growing by 30,000 a month. Every single day, there are more and
	more people: between 1,000 and 1,300 arrive every day, and each day those who come are more dehydrated, more undernourished, more exhausted and more traumatised.
	Some people, in order to avoid the effect of the searing heat on their children as they walk from the Somali border, travel at night through a no-man’s land, but that makes them even more vulnerable to attack. Aid agencies are organising buses from the Somali border, but although they are putting on more and more buses, they cannot keep pace with the flood of refugees. The accommodation in the camp cannot keep pace, either. When people arrive, they have to stay under makeshift cover outside the site. They wait in makeshift shelters until they are registered, and then they join the other—soon to be half a million—people in this camp in the middle of nowhere.
	It is hard to describe how bleak the camp is. When we came into land on the small landing strip, we flew over terrain that looks like the surface of the moon. It is so barren, there is just nothing, and then suddenly we saw hundreds of thousands of tents in the middle of nowhere. It is just desperate. For all the work of the camp staff and of the aid agencies, it is not a safe place, either. Of the group of women whom I met in the camp, which is 80% women and children, all said that they wanted to go back to their homes in Somalia—that, if only there was peace, they would go back to their land there. They said that they had fled not the drought, but the conflict.
	The camp director said that he wanted me to take back to this country just one message: “Whatever you do, please do what you can to sort out the situation in Somalia.” Of course there have to be high-level meetings at the UN and the EU to ensure that the wider international community plays its part, but the deep and long-standing conflict in Somalia will not be solved just by summits in Brussels and New York. We need to support the work of organisations such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Governments of Muslim states, who can help, and the African Union. We need to draw not only on the diaspora in Canada, America and continental Europe, but on the Somali diaspora in this country—on their advice, support and wisdom.

Kerry McCarthy: In Bristol, there is a very large Somali community, many of whom are my constituents, and their work to send remittances and to support development in Somalia and, indeed, in Somaliland is fantastic, but it is done individually. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that we could do more to encourage them to come together so that big projects might be funded along with commercial operations, particularly in Somaliland, where ports could be opened up and infrastructure built? Can we do more on that front?

Harriet Harman: Yes, I absolutely agree. We need to do a great deal more to recognise remittances. People sometimes think that such activity is undertaken only by Government Departments or by people giving to organisations such as Oxfam, but many individuals give their own money. The cost of sending money is also quite high, and we could do more, such as by creating diaspora bonds to enable people to invest. There are many ways in which we can support remittances, and we should do so.
	We have no embassy in Somalia, but aid agencies such as Islamic Relief are working on the ground there, and the Government should draw on their expertise in order not to get them involved in politics, but to use their connections with the civil society, which must be built up.
	In the immediate term, our Government must continue to give aid to Somalia. They have rightly prioritised aid for conflict-affected states, and Somalia is certainly conflict-affected. They have rightly emphasised, as we did, value for money, auditing and monitoring, but in reality, on aid spent in Somalia, that level of scrutiny will not be possible. We must still give the aid, however, otherwise the Somali people will suffer terribly as they flee and then just become aid-dependent miles from their home, in a camp where there is no future for them. We must continue, and the Opposition will support the Government in continuing, to give aid to Somalia.
	The Government must also redouble their efforts to work internationally to tackle climate change and to protect people who are affected by it. Our aid is making a huge difference, but we will prevent suffering in future if, as Oxfam has so clearly demonstrated, we bring about a major change in the way food is produced and distributed. The world produces more food than it needs, yet here in the 21st century 1 billion people go hungry. What is needed is support for greater long-term investment in agriculture, an end to exploitation by international land speculators and action to stop speculation on food commodities which causes prices to soar and means that hungry people cannot afford them.
	Our Government will be at the G20 summit in November. I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that the issues that have been raised by hon. Members in all parts of the House will be high on the agenda, with all the G20 countries not only keeping their promises on aid—Britain has, but others have not—but tackling the inequality and exploitation that sees global wealth accumulate while the poor starve.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I remind Back Benchers that there is now a six-minute time limit?

Tony Baldry: I spent time with Oxfam in Ethiopia during the famine of 1984. It is difficult to describe the horror of famine—its scale, one’s helplessness, the Martian-headed skeletons of marasmus, the swollen bellies of kwashiorkor, and the glassy eyes of children one knows, notwithstanding all efforts, will be dead by tomorrow. Then and now, these famines of biblical proportions kill fellow human beings slowly, painfully, and desperately. It is the death of their humanity and a collective test of ours.
	I want to make three points in the short time available to me. First, we need to do more to enhance and improve food and crop production in the horn of Africa and elsewhere in Africa. It is not sustainable to seek to keep alive millions of people in the horn of Africa in the hope of yearly grain surpluses from Nebraska, Australia or elsewhere. The UN estimates that $2.4 billion is required to meet immediate humanitarian needs until this December. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) observed, there is a funding
	gap of $1 billion, and no funding for ongoing needs and recovery. This is simply not sustainable. We need to enhance agricultural production in Africa and the horn of Africa.
	Secondly, we have to face up to the reality of population growth as a development issue. If a country’s economy is growing each year by 3% and its population is growing each year by 7%, then each year its sustainability is going steadily backwards. For example, the population of Ethiopia is now twice what it was at the time of the 1984 famine. Here is the wake-up call: in Ethiopia, even in a good harvest year, aid agencies are still feeding the same number of people as the number who received food aid in 1984. It is difficult to cultivate large parts of Ethiopia because of endemic malaria. Elsewhere, land is exhausted by over-use. Up in the Simien mountains, I have seen farmers with oxen and ploughs seeking to cultivate ever more marginal rocky outcrops, desperate for any extra land. The situation is unsustainable. Along with Lynda Chalker, I represented the UK Government at the UN population conference in Cairo in 1994. That conference, held over 15 years ago, was the last attempt by the international community to address the issue of population growth, and it needs addressing again.
	Thirdly, the deliverers of the apocalypse ride together: hunger, illness, death and conflict. As the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) made clear in her very welcome contribution, Somalia is a failed state—a basket case. It is a liability to itself and to its neighbours, viz the recent murder and kidnapping in Kenya: a personal tragedy and a broader tragedy for the Kenyans’ tourism industry and economy. Al-Shabaab has brought chaos to Mogadishu and terror to the rest of the region. The African Union deserves our support in seeking to bring stability to Somalia, but that process needs focus, concentration and consistency. For far too long, so-called Somali warlords have been ripping off the west in phoney peace talks in the luxury of Nairobi resort hotels, running their businesses from the comfort of Kenya while pretending to try to find peaceful solutions for Somalia.
	Nor should we forget that the one part of Somalia that is stable, peaceful and potentially productive is what was once the British Somaliland Protectorate and is now Somaliland. For 20 years, Somaliland has had repeated democratic elections, a functioning presidency, a functioning Parliament and defined borders, and it has been wishing for and wanting de jure recognition by the international community. At the first consultative meeting on ending the transition, which was held recently in Mogadishu, I observed that it had delegates from all sorts of places, including the EU and the UN, but, as far as I am aware, no invitation had been sent to Somaliland for observer status or to take part in those discussions. Of course we need stability in Somalia, but the international community also needs to resolve the legal status of Somaliland. Unless we resolve the conflict in Somalia, we will never have peace in the horn of Africa, and until we have peace in the horn of Africa, we will continue to have famine.

Andrew Smith: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), my colleague from Oxfordshire. I agree with everything
	that speakers on both sides of the House have said so far. It is very heartening, faced with such an appalling situation, that there is this extent of agreement between us. I join what has been said in commending the response of the British public, the Department for International Development, the non-governmental organisations and the diaspora communities. That is good to see, but we are all aware that there is so much more to do.
	First, I stress the importance of global action to counter the role of financial speculation in driving up food prices and increasing their volatility, as shown in research by the World Bank and UN bodies. It would be helpful if the Government could confirm UK support for effective EU regulation in this respect, as well as action at the G20.
	Secondly, I draw the House’s attention to a good point that has been made to me in a helpful briefing from CABI—the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International—which is based in Oxfordshire: that losing less food is as important a contributor to food security as growing more. Currently, farmers lose an average of 40% of their crops to pests and diseases, and most of that is unnecessary. Using existing knowledge and providing timely, practical and specific advice through local clinics to farmers on the management of plant pests and diseases can have a significant impact on food security right now, with no need for additional water, land or other resources. Obviously, people need extra water in places where there is not any, but the point is well made. To this end, I commend the Plantwise initiative, which is supported by DFID and by the Swiss aid agencies.

Joan Ruddock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, tragically, these countries will suffer worse conditions, certainly with less water, if climate change continues unabated, and that in the interests of preventing famine in Africa, the international community needs to redouble its efforts to tackle climate change?

Andrew Smith: I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend—that is imperative. When we see these awful experiences of people, we are reminded of the real human consequences of climate change and the necessity of action.
	Thirdly, I want to refer to the situation in Sudan. The role of conflict and political strife in creating and exacerbating chronic food insecurity is well known, and it is important to push for greater humanitarian access into regions of Sudan, including Darfur, Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile. However, we have seen in the past how the Government of Sudan have used negotiations over access to further their own narrow political interests—for example, tactically negotiating for restrictions on its opponents during the wet season, when their own army is at a disadvantage and guerrilla groups have the advantage, and then nullifying agreements for humanitarian access during the dry season, when traditional forces have the advantage. I urge the UK Government to take that into account when engaging in the vital discussions that are necessary on improving humanitarian access.
	I should also like to highlight the importance of engaging with diaspora organisations that are organising relief—for example, the Nuba Mountains Welfare Association. We can all see how, in politically sensitive situations, these organisations may get more access to displaced people through informal networks than
	established NGOs, which may be understandably cautious about getting involved or directly blocked by restrictions imposed, in this case, by the Government of Sudan, or in other areas by local warlords. Improving DFID’s relationship with diaspora groups and pursuing innovative partnerships can bring real benefits for civilians in conflict areas who cannot be reached through traditional means.
	In the specific case of Abyei, where displacement following the invasion and occupation of the region by the Sudanese armed forces disrupted the traditional planting season, it is imperative that the UK Government prioritise the pursuit of a solution on its political status and do not just focus on implementation of the temporary interim agreement.

Andrew Mitchell: On the humanitarian efforts, we have given substantial funds and indeed pre-positioned resources to the common humanitarian fund. On Abyei and the border, which the right hon. Gentleman is right to prioritise, we continue to give strong support to the process led by President Mbeki to get all parties together.

Andrew Smith: I welcome what the Secretary of State says. I am sure that he will take into account the repeated and as yet negated promises for a referendum for the permanent residents of Abyei. Continued political insecurity, even after the displaced people have returned, may lead to a near-permanent reliance on food aid in a region that is actually fertile and where communities could otherwise return to self-reliance in the medium term.
	My final point relates specifically to South Sudan, but has broader application elsewhere. It relates to points that others have already made. It is vital that resources are focused on programmes that support individual farmers and that, in particular, support is targeted towards women, given the traditional breakdown in responsibilities, whereby women are often the agents in cultivation among the Dinka and other significant tribes in the region. That will help to ensure that aid improves cultivation, rather than simply increasing cattle herd sizes or inflating bride wealth prices. Support for the formation of co-operatives, offering advice on issues such as the management of plant pests and diseases, and helping with marketing and so on would be especially useful.
	To conclude, although the volume and reach of aid is clearly crucial in the short term—I echo what has been said about the importance of keeping up our efforts and of other countries starting to match them—it is critical that there are well-directed measures on conflict resolution, security, farming methods, pest control, infrastructure and price stability, because it is those things that will enable the parts of Africa that are suffering to become more self-sufficient in the long run. It is vital that international effort is directed towards that end.

Caroline Nokes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing this important debate. Further, I congratulate all the British people and residents in my constituency who have contributed so significantly to the DEC appeal.
	Today’s debate is critical and my contribution will focus narrowly on an issue that has been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). We must ensure not only that we have sustainable high-yield agricultural practices, but that they tread lightly on ecosystems and the environment in parts of the world that are very vulnerable. Way back in 2003, the Governments of the African Union committed in the Maputo declaration to the need to provide not just high-yield agriculture, but sustainable high-yield agriculture.
	The environment will, of course, be vital in any discussion of sustainable food production. Over the past 30 years, we have become increasingly aware of our own environmental impact. I would argue that we have not focused enough attention on the equally important issue of food production, which can have a serious environmental footprint. The Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member along with several hon. Members who are present, is currently looking at sustainable food production, focusing largely on this country. We were lucky enough to visit a farm in my constituency that has high standards of sustainable food production. However, it is not good enough just to know the answers here; we must spread the message around the globe.
	If we want to prevent global poverty and famine from becoming an even bigger problem for the developed and developing world, we must invest in the communities that need the most help. There is a clear humanitarian interest in ensuring that development aid is used to create sustainable agricultural practices that move people towards food security and nutritional self-sufficiency.
	One way in which that can happen is through the technique of conservation agriculture, which the United Nations defines as being based on the three principles of minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover and crop rotation. Leading members of the Tropical Agriculture Association, such as Professor Amir Kassam, propose that this type of farming is the only viable option to ensure the long-term sustainability of food production in the horn of Africa. Conservation agriculture recognises the need for soil to contain nutrients and biological matter to support plant growth. That is achieved by covering the field in mulch obtained from waste crops, which protects the moisture in the soil, thus ensuring its viability over the long term.
	That practice has proved successful and there is a significant increase in peer farming. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that peer farming is not something that happens in the other place; it is where farmers spread the message to their neighbours and colleagues and learn from one another to increase their yield and sustainability. This could be the key farming technique in tackling hunger across the whole of the developing world, as there are currently 450 million smallholders worldwide trying to meet the needs of 2 billion people.
	The UK does not feel the impact of climate change as severely as the horn of Africa. British farmers can plough their fields, partly because they are much bigger, but also because rain is not in short supply, as we have learned this summer. Where drought is a real danger, it is crucial to maintain soil so that it can yield a crop in good seasons and in bad.
	The net results of these methods can be very impressive, with less impact on the environment, increased food yields for the domestic population and improved livelihoods
	for the farmers. That is the basis of the Maputo declaration, which calls for 10% of the development aid budget to be allocated to improving agricultural techniques. In countries such as Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia, where 80% of smallholders farm less than 2 hectares, food production is labour intensive and inefficient, and as a result the yields are low. These countries suffer extremely from poor food security and we have to focus on priming the pump of sustainable food production to ensure that it is not the exception, but the rule. As a result, dependence on aid will lessen, building dignity, self-sufficiency and economic growth.
	There are very good examples in Africa of conservation agriculture making impressive strides in improving the output of products, creating genuine movement towards self-sufficiency and increasing nutrition for the population, in a way that has a low impact on the environment. For example, in northern Tanzania, against the backdrop of poor quality soil and soil erosion, the adoption of these techniques has led to a dramatic increase in yields from just over 2 tonnes per hectare in 2004 to 14 tonnes per hectare in 2009. Currently, 7,000 acres in this area are farmed according to the principles of conservation agriculture, and that is set to triple by 2015.
	There is reason for optimism that through the responsible application of these principles, the parts of the world that most need to move towards self-sufficiency will be able to do so. I would argue that the horn of Africa needs to have its own 21st-century agrarian revolution. Therefore, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that Government spending on aid, although it seems to be a huge controversy for some of my constituents who write to me suggesting that we should reduce it, is something that we must do. If it is deployed in the right way, promoting sustainability and self-sufficiency, it can be the building block of poverty reduction and famine relief.

Eilidh Whiteford: I congratulate the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing the debate, and add my tribute to those who have given so generously to the appeal. Over the past few months, dramatic events at home and in other parts of the world have diverted attention away from the huge and ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in east Africa. We have an important opportunity today to highlight what is going on in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya.
	The fact that people have been so generous to the DEC appeal and to the appeals of other agencies shows that there is public concern about this issue. It is sad that the response of citizens stands in such sharp contrast to the response from parts of the international community. Oxfam estimates that there is a shortfall of $1 billion in the funding needed to meet the immediate humanitarian needs in this year alone. I am glad that the UK Government have done their bit and I wish the Secretary of State every success in his efforts to persuade people in other donor countries that they need to do likewise.
	Perhaps the most galling aspect of the crisis is the fact that the famine was preventable. As other speakers have said this afternoon, early warning systems were in place that worked and were effective, but we collectively
	ignored those warning signals. It is always easy to be wise after the event, but there is no reason why a potentially manageable crisis in east Africa was allowed to become a catastrophe on such a monumental scale. Although the short-term focus has to be on humanitarian relief—keeping people alive through health interventions and the provision of food, sanitation and water—we also need to look at the underlying causes of the crisis and ensure that the UK’s longer-term development work invests heavily in preventive initiatives that reduce vulnerability to famine in east Africa and other parts of the world.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned the very complex political situation in east Africa, which has led to long-standing problems of conflict, political instability and weak governance. I will use the short time available to me this afternoon to focus on two other aspects of the crisis, the first of which is the impact of climate change.
	A key factor in the crisis is the changing weather patterns in the region, which has always been prone to drought. In recent years, the frequency of drought has been increasing and there have been long and repeated periods of unpredictable weather. Over the past few years, those changes have been wearing down people’s resilience and changing the way they live, as they find that traditional farming methods no longer work. As has been mentioned, life for the pastoralists has become extraordinarily difficult. Without enough water, their livestock die and they lose not only their economic livelihood but their only assets. I know that some aid agencies, including the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, have been buying up livestock before they die from pastoralists in northern Kenya and other parts of east Africa, so that they can give people money to keep themselves alive through the crisis. In the longer term, however, at the global level, we need to invest in the climate fund set up at Cancun and persuade other donors to honour their commitments and put money into the mechanisms that have been established to pre-empt and prevent such crises.
	The second aspect I want to discuss has already been raised by others in the context of food security and economic development. Despite the importance that we all attach to agriculture, it has been very unfashionable in development terms for a number of years and now represents a very small part of development aid budgets. An awful lot more emphasis is needed on supporting smallholders and investing in technical support for them. Since the L’Aquila summit in 2009, there have been commitments to boost agriculture spending, which has put those issues back on the agenda, but we are still looking for clarity on what that is achieving. I make a plea to the Government not to consign those commitments to the collective recycling bin, but to hold donor countries accountable for the commitments they have made.
	Let me briefly draw particular attention to the role of women in agriculture. Although they form the majority of smallholder agricultural workers in Africa, they rarely own their land and they have very poor market access; in addition, they rarely have access to the kind of credit facilities that farmers in all parts of the world need to sustain themselves. Given the imbalance of power, we must not reinforce those inequalities. I think we all recognise the importance of putting women and girls at the heart of efforts in health and education, but when we talk about business and climate change, we become a
	lot more gender blind and start talking in more general terms. We have to understand that if we reinforce existing inequalities, we will entrench poverty even deeper in those communities.
	My time is running out, so I shall conclude. We are responding to an immediate crisis, as we have to, but let us learn the lessons and try to look ahead, on a multilateral and international level, at how we can reduce the vulnerability of people economically to these shocks and put them in a better position to withstand the crises they face as a result of climate disasters and erratic weather.

Roger Williams: I, too, commend the hon. Members who secured the debate, which gives us an opportunity to express our appreciation to the British public, as well as to DFID and the non-governmental organisations who have played such a vital part in tackling the crisis. Our efforts have been seen throughout the world as effective, generous and brave, but continuous intervention in terms of food supplies is also needed. That will prove particularly difficult in areas that suffer from political and military instability and for those people who have been displaced and are in refugee camps.
	I want to touch on two issues that will be key to reducing food insecurity around the world: science and land tenure. I believe we all need to embrace science in agriculture. I was speaking to Derek Stewart at the James Hutton Institute which, with many similar organisations, does fantastic work in the science of improving the yield and nutritional value of crops. For example, golden rice has a significantly higher level of vitamin A and is a clever, effective and relatively cheap way of getting more nutrients to those who desperately need them. We need to give such institutions financial backing so that they can develop more such crops.
	The “Foresight: The Future of Food and Farming” report that was produced for the Government by Sir John Beddington and chaired by the Secretary of State, I believe, states that investment in new science and technology is critical to: producing more food, increasing the efficiency of food production and sustainability,
	“securing ecosystem services…keeping pace with evolving threats such as the emergence of new and more virulent pests and diseases…addressing new challenges, such as the development of new varieties of crops that are resistant to increased drought, flooding and salinity”
	and
	“meeting the particular needs of the world’s poorest communities.”
	Britain used to be at the heart of agricultural research and our scientists are still highly regarded, as I found when I visited Embrapa, the Brazilian Agricultural Research Organisation, during the inquiry of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs into food production to 2050. Sadly, as is often the case, success has meant that Government investment has reduced; in addition, anti-science attacks on genetic modification technology have meant that many commercial plant breeding businesses have moved out of Britain.
	In the past, food productivity has increased faster than the world population through investment in science, but Sir John Beddington foresees a perfect storm of a rapidly increasing world population and threats to world food production through climate change. The need for more scientific research is well made and should be
	responded to. We need to increase investment in methods of growing crops, both traditional and GM, which can achieve yields in drier conditions and are more resistant to disease. The role of the agronomist has been sadly reduced, with fewer being trained or employed by Governments, NGOs or commercial organisations. Britain used to export its agricultural expertise; it could still do so.
	I was particularly shocked by one statistic in the foresight report:
	“half of the world’s undernourished people, three-quarters of Africa’s malnourished children, and the majority of people living in absolute poverty can be found on small farms”.
	It is a huge contradiction that the very poorest and the worst nourished people live on the farms that produce food. We can give those people the tools and knowledge they need to feed themselves. There is an excellent example of that in my constituency. Hay-on-Wye, well known for its literary festival, has twinned with Timbuktu in Mali, well known for its library of Islamic literature and books. They have been working to help Mali’s people through fair trade for their crafts and measures to improve health and education. On a smaller scale, a project called Jump4Timbuktu, based in Hay-on-Wye and exported to Mali, has responded to the challenges of climate change and has had great success with drip irrigation, which is incredibly simple, requiring only water, a bucket and gravity, and which shows how to use scarce resources to maximise food production in sub-Saharan areas suffering from both drought and desertification.
	Some say that food security can be achieved by improving the productivity of all smallholdings and small farms. Although I have no doubt that improvements can be made, smallholdings are probably as much a cause of the problem as a solution, and in any case there is constant movement of people from the countryside to urban areas. That has gone on ever since cities came into existence, but this year was the first in which there were more people living in urban areas than in rural settlements. Small farms entail physical hard work for little reward; larger farms allow economies of scale and better results. The challenge is to enable people to make the move from these smallholdings from a position of strength, with the skills and resources necessary to make a success of urban living, rather than as economic migrants. There is nothing noble or virtuous about living in poverty and being undernourished in smallholdings.

Ian Murray: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing this debate on such an important topic.
	There is no doubt that even in difficult financial times, when the disposable incomes of people in this country are squeezed, the British public are instinctively generous in their support for those in other parts of the world who are less fortunate. The work of the Disasters Emergency Committee in highlighting the famine and relief efforts in the horn of Africa has been vital in saving the lives of many hundreds of thousands of the poorest people in that region. Many of my constituents who have contacted me strongly support the work of the aid agencies and the resources that the UK Government
	are putting into the horn of Africa, and people in the region are very grateful for those resources. There is concern, however, that those in the most severe need and the areas most beset by conflict are the least likely to get access to the aid that they so desperately require.
	As we have heard, according to the UN, as many as 13 million people across the horn of Africa region need food aid; as many as 750,000 people could die in Somalia alone over the next four months; and, worst of all, half of all deaths have been and will be of children. UN representatives on the ground have described the situation in parts of the region as worse than anything previously recorded. The question has to be asked, therefore: why do we get to such a stage of famine? Famine injects urgency, but it is often too late. That is not a new phenomenon. Since 1980, 42 droughts have occurred in the horn of Africa, almost half in the last decade alone, affecting more than 100 million people.
	The situation is progressively worsening, nowhere more so than in Somalia. Not only do people need greater access to food, but there is acute need for safe water, sanitation and disease control. Famine in Somalia is coupled with massive displacement of people both within the country and to neighbouring countries. The large influx of refugees has overwhelmed local host communities, led to conflict over ever more scarce resources, exacerbated the problems massively and had a negative effect on already fragile ecosystems.
	There is an urgent need to support countries that are susceptible to drought and to help to mitigate the impact on fragile environments. The summit on the horn of Africa held last week in Nairobi stated that
	“we reaffirm that freedom from hunger is one of the fundamental rights of citizens of any nation. Every effort should therefore be made—by governments, citizens and the international community alike—to bring the current emergency to an end”.
	More importantly, it went on:
	“Every effort should also be made to ensure that in future, drought will not cause undue human suffering, including in particular famine”.
	High food prices and price volatility are major contributors to the difficulties, and I want to highlight the impact that food commodity speculation is having on high food prices. That was also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith). Banks and hedge funds are betting on food prices in the financial markets, causing drastic price swings in staple foods such as wheat, maize and soy. Massive food price hikes are catastrophic for the world’s poor because they are more likely to spend more than 40% of their income on food, as opposed to about 10% to 15% in countries such as the UK. Food becomes unaffordable, which leads to increased hunger and malnutrition as less dairy, meat, fruit and vegetables are consumed, so that people can buy staple food; to an increased burden on women, particularly as they are often forced to earn more money by taking up exploitative employment; to households using up savings, getting into debt or selling assets, including critical assets such as livestock and equipment, to pay for food; and to families being unable to afford health care and education, as more of their income is needed to buy basic food.
	Historically, futures contracts were set up in US financial markets to help farmers to deal with price uncertainty in growing crops, but those contracts are
	now being bought and sold by bankers who have little or no involvement in the actual food being traded but who bet on food prices to make money. The World Bank lead economist, Wolfgang Fengler, highlighted that the price of corn reached a staggering 70% above the world average in east Africa as a result of a small number of farmers having control over the market and so keeping prices artificially high. It is extraordinary that it was cheaper to buy corn in the US and Germany than it was in places such as Somalia. Since January alone, the price of corn has increased by up to 200%.
	While some are reaping huge profits from betting on food, poor families and people across the world are paying the price of hunger and malnutrition, but the problem could be easily solved by the UK Government backing proposals to regulate betting on food prices in financial markets. The Obama Administration in the US and, as we have heard already, the European Commission are calling for regulation to curb betting on food prices in financial markets. The UK has to play its part in backing the European proposals and not block important progress towards regulation.

Alison McGovern: Would my hon. Friend, like me, like to hear at the end of this debate a firm commitment to that?

Ian Murray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. It is important that food commodity speculation across the world is dealt with because it is exacerbating many problems. If Ministers gave a commitment at least to consider regulation, as the US and European Commission are doing, it would be incredibly helpful to efforts to deal both with the immediate problems of famine and drought in the horn of Africa, and with the long-term issues, as many of the organisations and the horn of Africa summit have suggested we need to do in order to prevent such crises from arising again.
	The World Development Movement has led the charge; now the UK Government have to support two simple proposals that would be hugely helpful—again, it would be useful to hear whether the Government support them. First, all futures contracts should be cleared through regulated exchanges. Most contracts are currently made in private, which means that it is impossible to know how much and what is being traded; monitoring is impossible. Secondly, strict limits should be set on the amount that bankers can bet on food prices.
	Combining risky financial gambling with a basic human need is a recipe for global hunger. Excessive speculation on food prices needs to be curbed and the UK Government should back the European proposals for regulation. Drought and famine are avoidable. Just two years ago, the G8 acknowledged that increased investment in agriculture was vital and committed $22 billion over three years to assist affected areas. We have to act now and the G20 summit in Cannes must reaffirm that commitment.

Laura Sandys: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), as well as the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray).
	Many people have already elaborated much better than I could on the issues facing Africa specifically. I do not apologise, therefore, for using this debate to examine wider global issues of food security and how the global food security system impacts on the UK domestic market. The situation in east Africa is a tragic human disaster, but it is also an illustration of a global system that is at breaking point. The impact is being felt locally, domestically in the UK and globally. Unlike so many other international development issues, food insecurity and food inflation are not exclusively about overseas or foreign parts or the developing world; they are about us here and those who sent us here. In food, more than in any other sector, we are as one—with the soy growers in Brazil as much as with the families in Somalia facing the challenges of crop failure. There is no more globally traded product group than food, so the crisis in east Africa is our crisis.
	Anyone who does not believe that we need to address the long-term underlying problems of food production, famine resilience and demand and supply in the developing world in support of our domestic constituents is not living in the real world. I shall outline some of the domestic realities that we face and illustrate how crop failure, food shortages and famine anywhere in the world impact on our supermarket shoppers.
	This country imports 50% of its food, which might be too much. Food inflation domestically has been running at about 6%. The price of staples such as grain and sugar in particular have been rising significantly, and the situation has not been helped by the rush for biofuels. There is no drop in food prices on the horizon; they are still going up.
	We are facing the global reality of food consumption per head of population in developing countries rising even faster than population growth. Global population growth and increased consumption are putting increased pressure on marginal land, and global populations are moving from the countryside to the towns, depleting the food production labour force. Inflation is rampant. In Zambia, Botswana, Swaziland and Malawi, producers are selling locally for a better price than they get for their exports. That is causing price rises across the world.
	Protectionism is probably the most dangerous development for domestic consumers here in the UK and for the global food market, and it is becoming much more prevalent. Tanzania recently imposed an export ban, and other countries could follow suit. Climatic shocks, such as the one that caused the crop failure in Somalia, are increasingly becoming the norm. All this is creating a new paradigm for our domestic consumers. Food is becoming much more expensive, and the trade in food is declining due to greater domestic demand in the producer countries. The availability of commodities at low prices is becoming rare, and the markets on which we have depended for years to deliver cheap food to our supermarket shelves are being seriously challenged.
	Before anyone accuses me of being too UK-centric, let me point out the anomalies surrounding food production globally. Many experts state clearly that enough food is produced to feed the global population. There is not a food scarcity; the fundamental flaws in the food supply chain need to be addressed. The Department for International Development could play an important a part in that.
	An alarming quantity of food in the developing world is ruined before it can get to market. Storage is not available and productivity has not increased significantly in decades. Crops are ruined by disease, and by mismanagement due to a lack of agricultural education. Distribution is often ineffective in getting products to market, especially in the developing world. A lot of work needs to be done to get food from the farm to the fridge, but we are losing a lot on the way, often unnecessarily. Every time an African farmer does not get his food to market, or has a crop failure, a price rise in our domestic market becomes more likely. Every time we fail to support agricultural development and food education in Africa, we make our constituents more vulnerable to food inflation.
	Globally, we need to address some important initiatives. The G20 initiative must be taken seriously, and I hope that the report from the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the International Food Policy Research Institute will be taken seriously. The World Trade Organisation must be a priority for the Foreign Office, and food trade must be the most important issue.

Alison McGovern: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) for securing the debate, and to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for her excellent speech. My reasons for speaking in the debate are twofold. First, I want to raise awareness of this issue and thank those who have given, and to appeal for continued backing for that support. Secondly, I want to discuss some of the causes of the problem and some of the strategic issues involved.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned the British support for famine relief. There are some in the House and elsewhere who argue that charity begins at home. Looking into the eyes of a starving child gives the lie to that argument, however. In this debate, we have acknowledged our moral responsibility to uphold the dignity of the people affected by the famine. Let the message from the debate be that Britain will continue to offer support to those who need it, wherever in the world they live. I thank from the bottom of my heart all those in my constituency and around the country who have given through the Disasters Emergency Committee, and we call on Governments around the world to do likewise and to stand up for the needs of the most vulnerable people in the world. The famine might no longer be on our TV screens, but that does not mean that it is not happening and that people no longer need our support. We have a moral duty to show our support for the people who are affected.
	Other Members have given a good account of some of the causes of the problem, especially those relating to agriculture. There are interesting questions about the role of agriculture in development, and about whether the Department for International Development might do more work in that area.
	I want to talk specifically about food speculation, although many other factors are involved. It has already been pointed out that famine is neither an accident nor a natural disaster; it is the result of human failure. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye mentioned the
	comments of the Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen, about the causes of famine and their link to democracy. That point was well made, and needs to be listened to. People in the poorest countries do not have a voice, and that is part of the problem.
	I want to ask the Minister some specific questions about food speculation, although I understand that he might not be able to respond to them as he will not be summing up the debate. If he wishes to intervene on me, or if he can answer them in any other way, that would be welcome. The evidence on food speculation is inconclusive, but that does not mean that there is no evidence; quite the opposite. Part of the reason for its being inconclusive is the way in which the speculation is happening. I shall come to that in a moment.
	Let us be clear: famine involves political as well as economic failure. The food market is not serving the people of the world, as the hon. Member for South Thanet said. Mike Masters, a fund manager at Masters Capital Management, has done a great deal of research into this issue. He testified to the US Senate in 2008 that food speculation was certainly driving up food prices. He said:
	“Most of the business is now speculation—I would say 70-80%.”
	He went on:
	“Let’s say news comes about bad crops and rain somewhere. Normally the price would rise about $1 a bushel. But when you have a 70-80% speculative market it goes up $2-$3 to account for the extra costs. It adds to the volatility. It will end badly as all Wall Street fads do. It’s going to blow up.”

Roger Williams: The hon. Lady is making an important point. High food prices and increased volatility seem to coincide with reduced world stocks of food, because that makes the trade more excitable. Would it not be a good idea for Governments to hold strategic stocks of food, so that they could intervene directly in these markets?

Alison McGovern: We need an effective market that encourages trade between poor countries and richer countries, because increased flows will help people in both. The threat implied by the hon. Gentleman’s question is protectionism, but in the end, if countries close their borders and try to stockpile, that will help none of us. However, that is a detailed question.
	As a member of the International Development Committee, I have spoken to DFID about food speculation. I am told informally that the Treasury is leading on the issue and that it is not certain that there is any evidence. However, as the issue is clearly a development matter, I would be grateful if the Minister said at some point what role the Treasury has been asked to play in spotting and dealing with food speculation bubbles, specifically in relation to the G20. What action will be taken about over-the-counter trading? We need transparency and clarity on this matter—the reason the evidence is so inconclusive is that a lot of trading does not take place in regulated commodity exchanges—and the G20 is the way to get it. Will the UK support limits on speculation, either at the G20 or in other forums? Will we question the need for high-volume or high-frequency trading? Will the UK support the regulation of commodity trading alongside the regulation of financial products? If we go from having sub-prime market speculation
	undermining our global economy to having food speculation undermining it, we will have made the same mistake twice. I hope that at some point the Minister will comment on that regulation.

Heidi Alexander: The Minister will be unable to respond to the points that my hon. Friend has made today, owing to the time constraints in this debate. However, I have met Michael Masters and I know his concerns about commodity index funds. Will she join me in urging the Minister to write to those Members who have expressed concerns in this debate about the action that he might take, the conversations that he might have with his colleagues and the position that will be adopted in the upcoming discussions in Cannes?

Alison McGovern: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly helpful suggestion. The Minister might consider writing to those Members who have raised the matter in this debate or, indeed, to the Chair of the International Development Committee to explain what exactly DFID is doing to work alongside the Treasury.

Stephen O'Brien: rose—

Alison McGovern: I hope that the Minister is about to tell me how the Treasury will assist DFID in tackling food speculation bubbles.

Stephen O'Brien: I am not going to give an immediate response because that is not how this debate has been designed. However, I can say that before the previous intervention I had already made a note that says, “Write a letter to the hon. Member”.

Alison McGovern: I thank the Minister for that. My fear is that we have an absence of leadership on some of these issues. I hope that his clarification will help us to move away from that.
	At the end of the day, Britain has shown over the last decade what can be achieved to tackle global poverty if people right at the top of our politics are prepared to stand up and perform their moral duty to help poor people wherever they happen to live. I hope that all of us in this debate are behind that approach, and that the Minister will assist us in taking forward our aim of tackling not just today’s urgent problem, but the long-term strategic difficulties with food speculation.

Pauline Latham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken—particularly the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who has just spoken—on such a united debate.
	As many Members have mentioned, smallholder farmers are one of the keys to food security, and therefore to poverty reduction and creating sustainable livelihoods. That in turn will lead to less aid being required, which must be the goal that we are looking for. However, corruption in many countries in Africa must be tackled, including the secret sales of mines, with the money going to tax havens and no directors’ names being available, which means that it cannot be tracked. Not enough emphasis has been put on agriculture
	in developing countries, but I believe that the world has woken up to the importance of the agricultural potential there.
	A couple of months ago, I along with several colleagues went with the International Development Committee to Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi, three very different countries. Whereas Rwanda is investing in terracing, soil nutrition and irrigation, the DRC is in chaos, spending money on things that will not reduce the poverty of those who live there. Burundi has land that is extremely impoverished. The crops that we saw were extremely poor, and the farmers there need help to use fertilisers to aid crop intensity. The soil is so poor because of erosion and the lack of crop rotation. Each family in the village that we stayed in—or that most of us stayed in—grows its own food, but a more intensive project could help them to move from poverty to a higher standard of living by selling any excess, which unfortunately they currently do not have; indeed, they do not even have enough to feed themselves.
	In Uganda, where I have been involved in an agricultural project, farmers are beginning to reap the rewards of working harder and working together. They now need a machine to grind the maize into flour so that the excess can go to the markets. In Kenya, an organisation called Free the Children works with schools and women to encourage them to have a kitchen garden for use in school kitchens and at home. Children are much more likely to attend school when their parents know that they will receive a meal—any meal, never mind a nutritious meal. At home, the parents can also provide a much more varied diet if helped to begin growing a diversity of fruit and vegetables. A well-fed child can learn better and is less likely to succumb to diseases; and if they become ill, they have more reserves to recover than some of the children we see all too frequently on television. Ghana has done well over the past two decades in stimulating its agriculture. We should encourage different countries in the continent of Africa to learn from each other about what works.
	In India, the Select Committee saw a farmer who had moved away from the traditional subsistence crops to grow chillies. His income had improved tenfold and he was an extremely happy man because he could afford to send his children to school.
	Much of what needs to be done is simple and straightforward—for example, building rural roads, funding agricultural research, ensuring that rural people have access to clean water. Other things, such as finding effective ways to stimulate rural financial systems or to conserve soil and water, require trial and error to find effective solutions in local circumstances. It follows that those efforts need to be sustained, allowing enough time for promising developments to become embedded before switching attention and funding to some other issue.
	Women make up the majority of smallholder farmers, on top of all the other jobs they do, and we know that when women earn the money, they spend 90% of it on the family—in comparison with men who spend 40% or less, as they do not see the family as being so important. As in all countries, women are more concerned with the welfare of the family, so they spend on health, education and nutrition.
	In order to increase their production and therefore their incomes, smallholder farmers need access to affordable inputs, like seeds and fertilisers, and to technology,
	credit and advice. With climate change affecting so much of the African continent, they must also have access to drought-resistant varieties and crops with higher nutrition; they need to be shown how drip irrigation goes specifically to the roots of plants so that they do not spray water on to soil that does not need it.
	The UK is committed to spending £1.1 billion over the three years since the L’Aquila summit, but we are not delivering, so I call on the Minister with responsibility for Africa to step up the finance in all areas to provide better opportunities for these countries. The Department for International Development has the opportunity massively to increase its funding to food security and agricultural development when it increases its aid budget by £1.3 billion in 2013.
	When there is a crisis like the one that we see in east Africa, flying humanitarian aid in in the form of food is so costly that it makes perfect sense to invest in helping people to become self-sufficient before the next drought and famine, but African countries need to do their bit as well. They are committed to spend at least 10% of their budgets on agriculture, but that is happening only in seven countries—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Cathy Jamieson: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, which shows the value of having Back-Bench debates in which there is perhaps more to agree on than divides us. We have heard some moving speeches and contributions from people who have seen first hand what is happening in the crisis-hit areas. That is important. I do not think that anyone who has seen the images on our television screens could fail to be moved by them.
	As other hon. Members have pointed out, at this time of stringency and belt-tightening, it is important to convince the public that it is right to continue to protect—and, indeed, to look at how to increase—aid budgets. I recognise that the Government have listened to Parliament on this issue. I recognise, too, the generosity of the public, many of whom are, like many of my constituents, on low incomes themselves, yet they continue to give generously to the various appeals. Initiatives like the “Give a Day’s Pay” campaign, which was supported by The Independent, provide a welcome addition to the organisations appealing for aid. There was also the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, to which the public contributed about £57 million in just eight weeks.
	Members have spoken about the famine problems in Somalia. The UN estimates that a quarter of its population, 1.8 million people, have been displaced. Such figures easily trip off the tongue, but as hon. Members have pointed out, we are talking about real people, real lives and real human tragedies. No one could fail to be moved by the images of mothers who have lost their children on the long march to find food or who must watch their children die in front of them from lack of food.

Bob Stewart: As someone who has worked in such countries—and my wife has worked in the horn of Africa as an International Committee of the Red Cross delegate—may I point out that the problem is that the region has historically not been able to sustain those who live there? Perhaps now we should
	think about moving people to a better place that can sustain them, rather than building up camps that attract people who are then trapped, and whom we must feed for years. Does the hon. Lady agree?

Cathy Jamieson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Although we are short of time, I do want to move on to the issue of sustainability. Some of the organisations that briefed us were worried about people being displaced from their natural areas and ways of life, and about the process whereby people come to sit outside the camps and are screened before they come in, with all the associated difficulties. I accept that the problem is complex. The political situation in countries such as Somalia can easily discourage those involved in dealing with the issues, but we ought to continue to deal with them none the less.
	I pay tribute to those in the aid agencies who have risked—and, indeed, have lost—their lives trying to ensure that aid is delivered in sometimes very difficult situations. I also recognise the work of a Scottish charity, Mary’s Meals, which has launched an emergency relief response in Somalia as part of its latest effort to support starving people affected by the food crisis across east Africa. It is providing 100 tonnes of food aid to Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, to which tens of thousands of people have fled in search of food. It is estimated that the charity’s efforts will provide about 900,000 meals in famine-hit Somalia. The organisation has already been feeding more than 24,000 children with a daily life-saving meal in northern Kenya. As we approach the weekend, when many of us may be thinking about going out for a meal or having our favourite takeaway, it is worth noting that the cost of one life-saving Mary’s meal is 4p, so perhaps we could skip one of our meals out or takeaways this weekend and make a donation to that worthy cause instead.
	We must learn from the various crises about how best to avoid such situations happening again. Many of the organisations who spoke to me said that warnings of the crisis were there, and that although they are well geared up to coping with crises when they occur, they are not as good at preventing them. The warning bells were ringing loud and clear, but the current systems made it hard to intervene and to get everyone to move together. I am sure that Ministers will comment on that issue, which I know they take very seriously.
	Several Members have referred to food crises being caused not simply by a failure of food production or lack of food, but by some people not being able to access it. I am sure that the Minister will comment on that too.
	We have also heard several good contributions about resilience. With the best will in the world, there are still occasions when we do not spend aid money on the right things. I have been told of instances in which irrigation schemes, introduced with the best of intentions, led to the displacement of some pastoral communities, who were forced to move into other areas because they could no longer keep their livestock alive as they had in the past.
	When I was in Rwanda I saw some examples of how aid had helped local farmers to produce more indigenous crops. However, one of them told me that, having
	traditionally grown cassava, he was now being encouraged—with the best will in the world—to grow mandarin oranges, which he did not like very much, and that he did not find it helpful. That example reinforces the point that we must always work with people in those communities and listen to what they say.

Andrea Leadsom: I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing a debate on a subject that should be receiving far greater attention from the world’s leaders and press than it has to date.
	My own recent experience of Africa has been through annual trips to Uganda with a group of Northamptonshire sixth-formers. I set up a project in 2006 with the aim of linking schools in the two countries and helping young people to gain a greater understanding of one another's lives and culture. Each year since then we have held a youth conference in Uganda, where the topics discussed have ranged from the role of women to fair trade, the environment versus development, and the role of supranational institutions. The conferences provide a fantastic opportunity for students to learn from each other’s very different experiences, but the one message that we have always heard loud and clear from those young Africans is that they want to make their own way as equals, and that aid for the poorest should offer a hand up rather than a handout.
	The situation in the horn of Africa is devastating. More than 13 million people are affected in Ethopia, Somalia and Kenya, and the number is increasing. Tens of thousands of people are already dead, and the United Nations estimates that three quarters of a million risk dying in the coming months. However, to my great sadness, I have received one or two letters from constituents asking why we are bothering to try to help. They point to the fact that we have problems in our own country, and suggest that because of AIDS, civil wars, disease and natural disasters these people will die anyway, so it is all a waste of money. That is a pretty shocking attitude, but one that requires a serious and logical response. The problems of African famines are a stain on the conscience of the developed world.
	I recently met a successful Asian Ugandan business man in the United Kingdom who argues that Africa subsidises the west, not the other way around. He analyses the price of a tonne of fresh pineapple or a tonne of coffee beans, which is the only income for the African producer. He then calculates the margin added by the processing of the produce—usually in the west—and the margin added by the western retailer, and concludes that the vast bulk of the value from primary goods is earned in the west. One can see his point.
	I am proud that the Government stuck to the Conservative manifesto pledge to donate 0.7% of gross national income to aid. The United Kingdom is at the forefront of the relief effort in the horn of Africa, and is the largest humanitarian donor to the region apart from the United States. It is also good news that more donors are stepping up to the plate, and that the African Union and Saudi Arabia are now providing aid. However, we must accept that the international community has been
	slow to react. There were warnings of impending drought as early as August 2010, but little was done until the rains failed in May 2011.
	We need to learn the lesson once and for all that prevention is better than cure. We must not only provide support early with the aim of avoiding repeat disasters, but achieve maximum value for British taxpayers’ money so that our constituents do not conclude that it is all wasted. We may not be able to predict droughts accurately, but we can do much more to prevent famine. Let me briefly outline three possible ways of doing that.
	First, building community resilience is key. Improving access to markets for smallholders and giving targeted support to women who often provide the main support for the family can make a big difference. It is vital to focus on reducing trade barriers and tariffs for exports.
	Secondly, we should work harder to address the real issues of poor government. It is a well-known fact that democracies have far fewer famines than non-democracies, even when differences in wealth are taken into account. Ethiopia, with a GDP of £18 billion, could afford to feed her people. Freedom of the press and a powerful opposition would have a dramatic impact in promoting prevention measures. Likewise, introducing property rights that allow farmers to own, rather than just lease, their land would give them greater ability to manage their own livelihoods.
	Finally, when this immediate crisis wanes, I think we should look closely at Save the Children’s policy of distributing food vouchers rather than food. I am no expert, but it seems to me to be essential to enable the means of exchange. Families who are able to use vouchers to buy food and clean water to meet their own needs are empowered by that, and that creates better incentives for farmers to produce in order to meet demand. British aid is best spent helping Africans to help themselves. I fully believe in the old saying, “It’s better to give a fishing rod than a fish.”

Tom Greatrex: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) on both securing the debate and their speeches. Several other Members have also made powerful contributions. They focused on the horn of Africa, and rightly so given current circumstances.
	Given the breadth of the motion however, I want to touch briefly on food security in Malawi. I should first declare an interest: I am the co-chair of the all-party group on Zambia and Malawi. Some positive signs are coming out of Malawi, which it is useful to bear in mind when considering wider issues across Africa. In 2004, national food production in Malawi was 0.9 million metric tonnes in deficit. In 2011, it is estimated that there will be a food surplus of 1.2 million metric tonnes. That is a remarkable turnaround, and is in no small part thanks to the farm input subsidy programme introduced in 2005 by the Malawi Government and supported by international aid.
	Agriculture is the backbone of the Malawi economy, contributing more than one third of entire GDP and employing 80% of the country’s work force. The programme targeted support at the most vulnerable households,
	allowing them to access the fertiliser and maize seed required to improve agricultural productivity and food security. A voucher system was used, which targeted millions of maize farmers and hundreds of thousands of tobacco farmers. Farmers used the coupons to purchase fertilisers and seed.
	Combined with sometimes favourable rain seasons, the programme resulted in dramatically increased maize harvests. That has allowed the Malawi Government to transform the country from a land of perennial famine to a net exporter of maize. Malawi now exports 400,000 tonnes of grain to Zimbabwe and 80,000 tonnes to Swaziland and Lesotho. Not only has harvest yield increased, but the programme has improved the food loss situation. In talking about the importance of food production, other Members have touched on reducing food loss, and post-harvest food loss in Malawi has fallen to 7.6% in 2009-10, which is a dramatic improvement on the previous figure. As the United States Agency for International Development confirms in its most recent assessment of food security in Malawi, the outlook is good.
	There are, however, considerable diplomatic and governance issues in respect of Malawi, as the Minister will know, and there are still pockets of the country where the situation is not so positive, mainly in the south. Concerns have also been raised in some quarters about various elements of the programme, particularly the multinational seed suppliers and some issues touched on earlier by the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). However, the Malawi successes are worth highlighting as examples of where, beyond addressing initial, pressing famine needs, long-term planning can make a positive difference, as there may be lessons for other parts of Africa.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), I want to use this debate as an opportunity to pay tribute to the Scotland-based charity, Mary’s Meals. It started its work in Malawi back in 2002, providing school meals to impoverished children. Incredibly, it now provides meals to 450,000 Malawian schoolchildren a day. Food security is central to the raison d’être of Mary’s Meals. The organisation was set up after a conversation between its founder and the eldest son of a Malawian woman dying of AIDS. When he was asked what he wanted from life, his response was that he wanted to have enough to eat and to go to school one day. Those are not particularly lofty aspirations, but for very many people in Malawi they were but a dream. It is on that basis that Mary’s Meals adopts a very simple approach in Malawi, which is that education is the best route out of poverty and food insecurity. A hungry child is a restless child, and a restless child is less likely to learn. Education is key to climbing out of poverty and to ensuring food security for the people of Malawi and other countries.
	As I stated, Malawi is far from perfect. There are many problems there and many issues still need to be addressed: too many of its citizens still live in inhumane poverty; too many children go without food; and too many people still die of HIV/AIDS. However, at a time of great famine in other parts of the continent, the progress made in Malawi is a timely reminder of what specific and targeted Government action can do to increase food security for some of the most impoverished in the world.

Sarah Newton: I am pleased to be able to participate in this afternoon’s debate. I know that quite a few Members still wish to speak, as we were a bit later starting this debate than we might have been, so in the hope that everyone who has waited so patiently will have an opportunity to make a few remarks, I will cut down my comments and therefore not get to the aspects of my speech relating to food security and our united belief that prevention is better than cure.
	I wish to associate myself with the comments made by all those who have paid tribute to the voluntary organisations that are doing such fantastic work. I also wish to reflect on some of the things that the Government could learn from the current humanitarian crisis and on how we might improve our response in future. I wish to pay tribute to ShelterBox, a great Cornish charity set up by a group of Rotarians, that provides humanitarian aid. It does so mostly in the form of shelter, but it also enables people to cook food and ensures a good supply of clean water through its boxes. It was set up in 2000 and has responded to more than 140 disasters in more than 70 countries. This voluntary organisation relies totally on individual donations and does not receive any funding from the Disasters Emergency Committee appeals.
	The ShelterBox team that is currently in east Africa went out there in July. ShelterBox response teams are made up of highly trained volunteers, and they have been working with people from the UK, Australia, Canada, the USA, France, New Zealand and Germany. So far, they have been able to assist more than 8,600 families, contributing more than £2.2 million-worth of aid. They have been doing that in the refugee camps in Ethiopia, as well as in Somalia. They often undertake such work in extremely difficult circumstances, at great risk to themselves, and it is important that we pay great and fulsome tribute to all those volunteers.
	In Kenya alone, ShelterBox boxes have assisted 7,000 families and in the Dadaab refugee camp approximately 1,000 people a day are being helped, with 100 to 150 tents put up daily. The teams are working with a great number of organisations from all over the world and with local people, who are assisting with putting up the tents. The people in the teams wanted me to say to the Government that they have really noticed the improvements that have been made—the much better co-ordination among the non-governmental organisations and the various supranational organisations on the ground—which are making their life much easier. However, they are able to address only a fraction of the need.
	Other hon. Members have set out how much more needs to be done. On 15 August, Adrian Edwards, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees spokesman, said:
	“As well as needing food and water, these new arrivals urgently need proper shelter, medical help and other basic services”.
	The UNHCR estimated that another 45,000 tents were needed, which brings me on to the recommendations that I would like the Government to consider.
	I welcomed the humanitarian emergency response review carried out by Lord Ashdown and published in March. I remind my hon. Friends that the aim of the
	review was to deliver the maximum possible benefit to those affected by disasters while at the same time delivering value for money for the UK taxpayer. I also welcome the Government’s response for two particular reasons: first, they recognised the important role of independent charities and the value of their role in disasters emergency relief; and, secondly, they made a commitment to set up a rapid response facility to pre-approve high performing UK charities and to enable them to do more of what they do so well.
	At the time, the Government announced that there would be a consultation on the rapid response facility. I hope that while the consultation is going on the Government will learn from the excellent work of ShelterBox. A key message the charity has given to me is that, despite the fact that we are all going to work and redouble our efforts to prevent problems, disasters in the world are increasing as a result of climate change and other issues. It is important that we should be able to build up reserves so that when disaster strikes we can quickly get aid to where it is needed. Of course, tents take time to be manufactured, and it is important that the Government should enable organisations such as ShelterBox to manufacture its very specialist tents, which can provide so much important shelter and comfort.
	I hope that the consultation can be speeded up and the recommendations implemented so that more UK charities, such as ShelterBox, can provide desperately needed help and do what they do best. Although charity begins at home, it does not end there. I urge the Government to do all they can to enable this great little Cornish charity to carry on making its substantial contribution.

Kerry McCarthy: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing this debate. I went out to Kenya with my hon. Friend about a year ago and I shall touch on some of the things we saw during that visit, which had a profound impact on both of us, not just negatively as we saw the problems faced by people out there, but positively as we saw what incredible things could be done for a very small outlay.
	Let me start by talking about Somalia. As I said in my intervention, there is a Somali community of significant size in Bristol—some say that it is about 20,000 strong. Many arrived as refugees but others arrived from the former British colony of Somaliland. It is obviously no coincidence that Somalia has coped a lot worse with the drought situation than neighbouring countries, such as Ethiopia. Ethiopia has in place a food safety net to deal with such situations and when I went out there with the all-party group for Somaliland, we stayed in Addis Ababa and had lots of conversations with individuals from the Department for International Development and from the embassy. We then went out to Hargeisa to see the situation in Somaliland.
	I was struck by the efforts that have been made on the aid front in Ethiopia, including the food safety net and public service agreements, which, despite political instability, problems and issues caused by the climate, were there as, indeed, a safety net. There is a complete lack of that in Somalia. There is also an effective early warning system in Ethiopia, which is not possible in a country as unstable as Somalia.
	Constituents have time and again expressed their concern that Somalia has never had the political attention it deserves, and questions are always asked about why Sudan is seen as a political imperative as opposed to any other country that is riven by tribal conflicts or that has problems. I suspect that it is partly because Somalia is seen as such an intransigent and difficult-to-solve problem. One thing that could be done, however, is to give recognition to Somaliland. I was one of the founder members of the all-party group for Somaliland and it has been politically stable since the civil war of 1991, it has fair and free elections and there is huge potential to build the infrastructure and work with the diaspora to set up commercial organisations and use the ports at places such as Berbera for exports, making the country a lot more profitable and cementing its stability.
	On food security, according to the World Bank, investment in agriculture in the developing world is between two and four times more effective in reducing poverty than investment in any other sector. As my hon. Friend said quite compellingly, agriculture has not been at the forefront of aid efforts; often the sector does not appear in country plans. It is important, and I hope that today’s debate helps to put down a marker that it should be given more priority.
	When I was in Kenya last year with the all-party group I saw the work of the UK organisation Send a Cow, which has been working for over 20 years in Africa, and subsequently went to visit its offices near Bath. The organisation tells me that it takes an average of three to five years for an extremely poor community to become self-sufficient through one of its programmes. It would argue, and I agree, that that is a much better investment than having to provide food aid every time the rains fail. Self-sufficiency is key. The organisation achieves that by creating a network of peer farmers, so that the people who benefit from its initial work then train others in the community. Each family that the organisation works with passes on livestock, seed and skills to an average of 10 others in their community.
	We saw in Kenya what a difference is made by small changes to farming methods—such as planting fertiliser pellets a certain distance from seeds so that they do not burn the seedlings as they come up—and investment in barns to improve grain storage. We saw the work of FIPS-Africa—Farm Input Promotions Africa—and FARM-Africa in developing disease-resistant strands of crops and we learned more than we ever needed to know about the insemination of goats. Those are small changes, and sometimes they are surprising because we think that they are things that people should have learned through farming the land over years.
	When I went to India I spoke to a farmer who had just moved back to organic farming. He had come under huge pressure from companies selling pesticides to adopt what we in the western world would call modern farming methods, but when he switched back to organic methods his crops were far better and he was able to sell his food at market and make more money as a result. Some of these things have to be relearned, and we have to be careful that we do not try to impose our way of doing things.

Alison McGovern: Does my hon. Friend agree that that highlights the point made earlier about the question
	of DFID’s focus on agriculture and whether there needs to be a shifting of emphasis to some of the points that she is making?

Kerry McCarthy: That is true. In Bangladesh I went to a village where free-range chickens were running around. We went down the road and saw a structure made of twigs which was basically a battery cage for hens. The person I was with said, “This is progress. We are doing things the way that you do them.” In the western world we are trying to move away from battery cages and towards free-range farming. I worry—if I can end on a political note that has not yet been struck in this debate—that in this country the farming agenda has moved very much more towards speaking up for the farmers, for the vested interests and for the producers of food, and it is not about welfare methods or the consumers. There is an increasing emphasis on intensification, as we saw with the farming Minister’s support for the intensive dairy farm at Nocton. We need to set the standard in this country and abroad, and say that there is a sustainable way of feeding the world which does not involve locking animals up in battery cages and putting cows in the equivalent of multi-storey car parks.

Sarah Newton: I am very sad that the hon. Lady has chosen to introduce a degree of party politics to this debate. I cannot let her comments stand. This country, quite rightly, should be very proud that it has some of the highest, if not the highest, standards of animal welfare, some of the best farmers and some of the best farming practices in the whole world. Of course we can always do more, and we should aim to do so, but that is the position.

Kerry McCarthy: That is the position because over the past 20 years or so there has been significant progress on animal welfare. That is not a matter for today’s debate, but I have real concerns that the tide is turning in the wrong direction and that is a problem.
	I want to end with a quote from Oxfam’s Grow campaign, which states:
	“The vast imbalance in public investment in agriculture must be righted, redirecting the billions now being ploughed into unsustainable industrial farming in rich countries towards meeting the needs of small-scale food producers in developing countries. For that is where the major gains in productivity, sustainable intensification, poverty reduction, and resilience can be achieved.”
	That is the way forward, and I hope that we can play a major role in helping the developing countries—particularly those stricken by the famine that we are debating today—to adapt and secure their future livelihoods in that way.

Jeremy Lefroy: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	I also thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) for calling for the debate. I pay tribute to the outstanding work of the all-party group, which has provided so much information to so many of us. In addition, I thank all those in the country and, in particular, in my constituency, who have contributed to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, and the UK Government for their most generous response. In particular, I pay tribute to the Government of Kenya, who have hosted the refugees in a tremendously welcoming way, which should not be forgotten.
	So many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken eloquently and with great learning about this matter that I want to touch on only a few points in the hope of allowing others to speak. The motion states that food aid
	“must always be the last resort and that improving the productivity and resilience of domestic agricultural systems in Africa must by a priority for the UK and the international donor community”.
	I absolutely agree. Agriculture, as many hon. Members have said, has been given insufficient attention over many years. It was seen either as something of the past or as a cash cow that could be taken for granted. Instead, much Government and aid money was ploughed into factories, which in many cases are now out of production, sitting there idly. But the farmers are still there, and what more they could have done with that investment themselves. It has not been ignored by NGOs, such as Oxfam, Tearfund, Christian Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Islamic Relief and many others, which have ploughed a perhaps lonely furrow over the last couple of decades, but I am glad to say that the tide is turning.
	There has often been stirring rhetoric about the importance of agriculture, but in reality it has been heavily taxed, budgets for support have been low, and investment in infrastructure has been lacking—roads, storage capacity, power, irrigation, and many other things, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) mentioned, research.
	I recall calculating in the 1990s that the marginal tax rate for a smallholder coffee farmer in Tanzania was far higher than the highest income tax rate then prevailing in that country due to the crop levies that were being imposed locally and nationally at a time of low prices. I am glad to say that the Tanzanian Government listened and took action.
	What can be done? First, agriculture must be at the heart of any developing country’s plan for economic growth. I draw particular attention to the many comments that have been made about the centrality of women who do most of the work in this area and their importance to development. Agriculture provides food security, exports, employment, and, most importantly, cash direct to ordinary people. This priority has to be reflected both in the national budgets and in the taxation systems of those countries.
	It follows that agriculture must also be at the heart of international development. I join colleagues who have called on the Government to put more money into supporting agriculture in the coming years. The Government are moving in the right direction, but they are not going far enough at the moment. I am delighted that the CDC will be looking to invest more in agriculture, and I urge it to live up to those words. I also welcome DFID’s increased interest and support through programmes such as the Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund, where it is investing directly in smallholder agricultural products.
	Productivity has to be taken seriously. It is not just a matter of improving yields, although that is essential. It is also a question of proper logistics, warehousing, cold storage, transport, packaging and marketing. As many have said, too much has been wasted.
	Thirdly, the technology that is available to large-scale agriculture must be available to smaller farms. I have seen excellent examples of very small-scale farms with drip irrigation, which can improve yields dramatically, but much more could be done. Measures could be introduced to check and maintain soil fertility, ensuring the availability and affordability of fertilizers, training and extension.
	I would like to make one further point, on the impact of neglected tropical diseases such as worms and schistosomiasis. The Minister knows all about this. In fact, he rightly introduced the topic to the all-party group on malaria, which published a report on neglected tropical diseases this week. It is absolutely vital that these diseases are tackled, which can be done at very low cost. They have a significant impact on productivity, as people suffering from them have a downgraded ability to work, particularly in the fields. If we can tackle these neglected tropical diseases, we will also be tackling problems of productivity and agriculture.
	Finally, as has already been mentioned, borders must be opened up to trade. We have seen recently that countries in an area affected by drought are tempted to ban the export of cereals to needy neighbours because of fears for their own food security in the medium term. Although their caution is understandable, it should surely be possible to take a regional approach. I urge bodies such as the East African Community to deal with food security on a regional basis and co-operate as fully as possible. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today and welcome the contributions from all Members who have spoken on this important subject.

William Bain: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), whose comments on the role of agriculture in development I agree with strongly. I too congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and the whole Backbench Business Committee on calling this important debate.
	I believe that few people across the country could fail to be moved by the scale of the disaster that has inflicted itself on the horn of Africa. More than 13 million people have been affected in Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya, and 800,000 people have become refugees. Christian Aid and Oxfam have said that the crisis has three main causes: the worst drought in the region for 60 years; high food and fuel prices; and conflict, particularly in Somalia. Somalia’s per capita gross domestic product is only $333—among the lowest in the world—and 43% of its population survive on less than $1 a day.
	It is clear that long-term solutions to prevent a repeat of such a famine will require good governance, sound growth policies and active preparedness through the building of food reserves in the affected countries. However, a major factor contributing to the crisis has been underinvestment in the smallholder agriculture sector across the whole east Africa region. I welcome the contribution made by the G20 Agriculture Ministers in their June summit in Paris, where they called for an increase in food production, made food security a central issue in the G20’s reforms over the next year and pointed out the need for a 70% increase in agricultural production by 2050 to deal with a global population that is likely to rise to 9 billion people.
	In developing countries there is a need to double food production to prevent future crises. Three out of every four people in developing countries live in rural areas, and 2.1 billion people still live on less than $2 a day. We know that investment in the agricultural sector does more for growth and poverty reduction than investment in any other sector. I strongly welcome the launch of Oxfam’s Grow campaign, which is aimed at highlighting the importance of food security and calls for the regulation of commodity markets and policies that promote the production of food rather than biofuels. Currently, subsidies for first-generation biofuels amount to $20 billion a year.
	There is a clear and pressing question for the international community on food price regulation. The 2010 agriculture and commodity prices report of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation found that in June 2008 the prices of basic foods on international markets had reached their highest levels for 30 years, threatening the food security of the poor worldwide. In 2007 and 2008, as a result of high food prices, an additional 115 million people were pushed into chronic hunger. As US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation this May in Rome, rising global food prices since last June have pushed a further 44 million people into extreme hunger.
	The World Economic Forum’s report on global risk describes the link between water, food and energy as one of the future drivers of social and economic instability across the world. The International Food Policy Research Institute predicts a 30% increase in demand for water, and the International Energy Agency forecasts that the world economy will require at least 40% more energy by 2030. Half a billion people throughout the world face chronic shortfalls in water now, and that number that is likely to rise to more than 4 billion by 2050 as a result of climate change, with food production being particularly exposed.
	The UNFAO outlined in its June report on crop prospects that food insecurity has reached alarming levels in east Africa, and throughout the continent some 23 countries are in need of external assistance to feed their populations. The OECD secretary-general, Angel Gurría, spoke in early June at the International Economic Forum of the Americas of the imperative to increase public and private agricultural investment and of an end to export bans.
	There is an ongoing debate among non-governmental organisations and economists about the contribution of commodity price speculation and trading in commodity derivatives to the volatility of global food prices. Last week, Members were lobbied by Michael Masters and David Frenk of Better Markets, who also spoke to Governments in Paris and in London, about the need for concerted G20 action on commodity derivatives. They established the clear link between speculation from index funds and the monthly spike in commodity derivative stocks.
	Such speculation does not add liquidity to those markets or help farmers, and we need the Treasury to join Governments throughout the G20 to put in place a global version of the Dodd-Frank Act, making sure that all transactions are regulated by the stock market and that, in such transactions, position limits are placed on the trading of financial institutions.

Bob Stewart: Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being present for the whole debate. I wanted to be but could not. I was not going to speak—I was going to listen—but I have decided to say something.
	Africa is one of the richest continents in the world, and if the conditions were right it could feed itself properly. I speak as someone whose wife started an International Committee of the Red Cross camp in south Sudan for 100,000 people. She was often shelled by the Government there, and because of that she slept most of her six months at the camp in a slit trench.
	That brings me to the point that I want to make, and forgive me if it has been made already, but in so many countries it is the authorities that are the big obstacle. In so many countries in Africa, it is the leaders who tend to think that, because they are the president, the prime minister or whoever, they own that country and everything that goes on in it; and, of course, so much that goes in goes out somewhere else—to offshore bank accounts, on Mercedes cars or whatever—and does not get through. I do not know how we are going to correct that problem, but I do know that that is largely the problem. The Department for International Development is under this Government, and was under the previous Government, fully aware of it, and it is doing its very best to make sure that the money that we give, either as a Government or through our wonderful charities, some of which we have mentioned today, gets all the way through.
	Personally, I think that the forum of the world, the United Nations, should get a grip and somehow come up with a plan to make sure that people in Africa are fed properly, either by moving them to a place where they can be sustained or by getting some sort of arrangement with authorities whereby they do not interfere and we do not have to pay a levy—like I had to, not in Africa but in Bosnia, where we stopped the practice—to get food through to the people who need it. That is disgraceful. I very much hope that the United Nations, which is the highest authority in the world, can somehow get its act together to make sure that the people of Africa get fed properly and are not prevented from receiving proper aid by the authorities, either locally or nationally.
	I hope the House will forgive me for speaking.

Amber Rudd: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will wind up the debate. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). It is always interesting to hear from him about his passionate support for the people of Africa and about what his wife has been doing to support them.
	I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for attending and thank their opposite numbers for kindly coming here as well. The common theme of the debate has been that we need to do all we can to help the people of the horn of Africa. All Members have taken the time to congratulate the UK public on their contribution and express wholehearted support for the Government’s efforts, only stopping to try to redirect those efforts and introduce their own examples or themes regarding things they think can really make a difference.
	I should like to repeat a couple of the points that have been made and ask the Under-Secretary to respond to them in due course. Sadly, he will not speak on this occasion, but I am sure that he will come back to us individually. First, I will comment on food price volatility and commodity trading. The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) said she was not sure whether that is a matter of concern although it has been suggested that it is. It would be helpful to those of us who are concerned about food security to achieve a settled view, if that is possible, on whether it is something that we should be concentrating on. If it is, we absolutely need to address it, but if not, we do not want it to distract us from all our other efforts. Time and money are limited and we need to know where to focus them. It has also been interesting to hear so many Members speak strongly about the importance of focusing aid towards women, who support their homes and families, and I emphasise that point to the Under-Secretary.
	The complexity of the causes of the famine has not put the House off; instead, each Member has dealt with them with in their own way, drawing on their own experience to do so. The House should be proud of the fact that Members have put in such effort, resulting in a very good debate. The most important message to emerge is the urgency of improving agricultural resilience in these countries. If we can help people to grow their own food and feed themselves, we will help them to mitigate the difficulties that cause the famine we are now witnessing.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this debate and congratulate everybody on their speeches. I have very much enjoyed hearing so many Members speak so strongly and passionately about other people and countries that they care about. It is good for the House that we have done that. I commend the motion to the House.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Resolved ,
	That this House welcomes the contribution of the British public, via the Disasters Emergency Committee, and the British Government to the famine relief effort in the Horn of Africa; recognises that emergency food relief must always be the last resort and that improving the productivity and resilience of domestic agricultural systems in Africa must be a priority for the UK and the international donor community; and calls upon the Government to increase its focus on improving awareness around nutrition and agriculture in the developing world to support farmers and secure greater international food resilience and to champion the welfare of those in the developing world in the discussions on food price volatility at the upcoming G20 Summit in Cannes.

Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent

Dawn Primarolo: Before I call Mr Steve Baker to move the motion, I remind Back Benchers that a large number of people wish to take part in this debate and that therefore Mr Speaker has put a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.

Steven Baker: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the issue of Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent.
	I am extremely grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for making this debate possible. My predecessor, Paul Goodman, took this issue extremely seriously and I am sure that had this mechanism been available he would have called such a debate. I am also extremely grateful to the Members who turned out to support me at the Committee: my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) who spoke about Sri Lanka, the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin).
	The origin of this debate was my request for a debate on human rights in Kashmir and the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North for a debate on Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, some commentators mistakenly thought that we sought to conflate the two issues. That is not the case. It suited the Backbench Business Committee to bring the issues together under the heading of “Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent”.
	I have a simple purpose: to give a voice to the thousands of British Kashmiri constituents who demand and are entitled to representation in this place, their Parliament. I am aware that many Members wish to speak about Sri Lanka, so for the sake of time I will rely on my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North to cover that issue. I will say only that I support my Tamil constituents’ demand for an independent international investigation.

Lee Scott: As my hon. Friend rightly said, I will speak more about the issues relating to the Tamil community later. Does he agree that what is needed is justice for the Tamil people?

Steven Baker: I do agree with my hon. Friend. When I come on to my later remarks, I think he will share my view that this issue is part of the legacy of the British empire and its withdrawal from the world.

Gavin Shuker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the importance of this debate is that it will give a voice not only to parliamentarians, but to the people of the countries that are affected, such as those in the disputed region of Kashmir?

Steven Baker: Not for the first time, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is absolutely our reason for being here: to give a voice to those people.

Joan Walley: I genuinely congratulate all the Members who have got this matter on to the agenda of our Parliament this afternoon. There are many people in Stoke-on-Trent from Kashmir who feel strongly that the issue of civil rights and justice
	needs to be on the diplomatic agenda of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and that it must negotiate on this issue. We need to deal with the human rights abuses and it is important that this debate is followed through.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am pleased that there seems to be a cross-party consensus on the nature of this conversation, and I hope that will continue throughout the afternoon.

Brian Binley: Does my hon. Friend agree that seeking a judgment on behalf of one side is a bit pejorative and that what we really need is to create healing between two groups of people that have both been harmed by a very damaging terrorist war?

Steven Baker: My hon. Friend will find as I make progress with my remarks that I agree with the thrust of what he has said. I certainly do not wish to be divisive.
	The status of Kashmir and the history of events leading to its division have long been contested and have led to at least three wars between India and Pakistan. India claims that the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir legally acceded to it in 1947. Pakistan claims that Kashmiris were denied their choice of which state to join and holds that the status of Kashmir can be decided only by a plebiscite in line with UN resolutions. Kashmir has been divided since 1948 by a ceasefire line, known as the line of control. It is not my intention to rehearse the whole history of events as time does not permit it.
	The region remains one of the most militarised in the world, with thousands of troops on both sides of the line of control. Further to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), I do not think that is in the interests of either country. Various peace negotiations have taken place, leading to a number of practical, confidence-building measures, but I am afraid that the Mumbai attacks interrupted them.
	For me, the history of Kashmir emphasises an absolutely vital point—the importance of peace and comprehensive non-aggression, because when violence begins, despair is not far behind. There are those who say that we should not be discussing these matters today, but for me the ghosts of empire have left us with an inescapable paradox. On the one hand, India is entitled to make its way in the world; it is the largest democracy in the world and there should be no echoes of paternalistic colonialism. On the other hand British Kashmiris, for whom the Kashmir issue is of deep, abiding and passionate concern—for the world is a small place—demand and are entitled to a voice in this place on this issue.

John Hemming: On that point, the British Kashmiris in my constituency are asking for justice for Kashmir—for investigation and action to stop human rights abuses. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a key thing to do?

Steven Baker: Absolutely, and I shall come to that point.
	I do not intend any lazy demagoguery, as that would be too easy—no cheap condemnation of India and, I am afraid, no false hopes for Kashmiris.

Bob Blackman: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Steven Baker: No, I am sorry; I must make progress.
	I wish to discuss Kashmiris’ rights to life, liberty and democratic self-determination, and to connect those issues. My Kashmiri constituents have brought to me allegations that I scarcely believed of killing, mass murder, rape, brutality and arbitrary detention. Having visited Mumbai and found India a mature country with a sophisticated democracy and institutions modelled after our own, I found those allegations hard to believe, yet the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s human rights report of May 2011 confirmed that reports of human rights abuses on both sides of the line of control in Kashmir continued in 2010. Indian Prime Minister Singh has said that human rights violations by security forces in Kashmir will not be tolerated and he has instructed security forces to respect human rights. We must hope that his words are honoured by those in Kashmir.
	Human Rights Watch this year called for a repeal of India’s Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. It says that soldiers found responsible for serious human rights violations remain unaccountable because of immunity provided under that law. There might be propaganda on both sides—indeed, I am sure there is—but no one should allow themselves to believe that allegations of human rights abuses in Kashmir are unfounded.

Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just received a communication from an Indian paper called Daijiworld. The headline reads, “India reacts strongly to British parliamentary debate on Kashmir”. We have not even had the debate and already a parliamentary democracy is telling us that we should not be having it. That is not quite a point of order, but this really is an insult from the Indian journalists who say we should not even be debating this in our own House of Commons.

Nigel Evans: Thank you, Mr MacShane. Perhaps you have just introduced a new practice in which people stand up and say, “Nearly point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.” You are quite right: it was nearly a point of order but it certainly was not one for the Chair. However, it has been put on the record.

Steven Baker: I am most grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution.
	As I was saying, we must not deceive ourselves. Moving on to issues of freedom of movement, of association, of speech and so on, I want to mention a report by Amnesty International entitled, “India: A ‘lawless law’: Detentions under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act,” which contains a number of allegations regarding the use of preventive, administrative detentions. The contents include:
	“Violations of the principle of legality…Delayed and secret reasons for detention…No access to judicial authority…Restrictions on access to legal counsel…Indefinite detention of foreign nationals…Immunity of officials…Incommunicado detention …Torture…Detention without any legal basis”.
	That Amnesty International report deserves an answer.

Lilian Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the suffering of the people in Kashmir and the problems that they face daily. Does he share my concern that the international community has not put this issue high enough up the agenda by seeking to reach a resolution that brings peace to such a beautiful part of the world?

Steven Baker: The hon. Lady is right, and I am most grateful to her. Of course, I share that view, which is why we are here today.

Barry Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman be characteristically even-handed and mention the Amnesty report, “As if Hell fell on Me: the Human Rights Crisis in North-west Pakistan,” given that this debate is about human rights issues on the subcontinent as a whole?

Steven Baker: I am most grateful—

Nigel Evans: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, I remind him of the guidelines about the length of his contribution.

Steven Baker: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have taken my last intervention. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) makes a good point, although I have not read that report. I am seeking to be even-handed, but even so, I have to enter this into the record for the sake of discussion. The “lawless law” report states that by using the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act
	“to incarcerate suspects without adequate evidence, India has not only gravely violated their human rights but also failed in its duty to charge and try such individuals and to punish them if found guilty in a fair trial.”
	I wish to express considerable humility on this point, because the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act is very much in line with the principle at least of our own control orders and terrorism prevention and investigation measures. The House should therefore not be too quick to condemn the principle of what India is doing. It is very much in line with what we have done. In my Second Reading speech on TPIMs, I condemned administrative detention outright and then withheld my vote from it, so I hope that I will escape the accusation of hypocrisy.
	We need to consider how these measures arise. Why do democracies turn to such measures? I suggest that when democracy is denied, people turn away from it and end up seeking violence. I am proposing, for the people of Kashmir, a comprehensive policy of non-aggression, peace and democratic self-determination under the terms of the UN resolutions. I accept that the situation in Kashmir can only, and must, be resolved by Kashmiris, India and Pakistan, but we must acknowledge in this place the absolute moral, legal and political equality of the Kashmiri people and take whatever steps are appropriate to secure demilitarisation, democratic self-determination and a prosperous and secure future for Kashmir. I hope that the Government are listening and will take whatever steps they can.

Nigel Evans: I remind Members that there is a five-minute limit on speeches.

Shabana Mahmood: I am grateful to be called to contribute to this important debate and I congratulate the hon. Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on securing it. I am pleased that it has proved so popular with parliamentary colleagues, although the unfortunate flip-side is that we have a strict time limit on our contributions.
	Like the hon. Member for Wycombe, I wish to focus my comments on the situation in Kashmir. This topic is important to me because my constituency, and Birmingham as a whole, has a large British-Kashmiri population, some of whose members are here for the debate and many of whom have written to me asking me to voice their concerns in the House. The subject is also important to me personally, because I am of Kashmiri origin: my family originated from the Mirpur district of Pakistani-administered Kashmir, both my parents were born there and I still have family and friends there. Consequently, the plight of Kashmiris and the necessity of finding a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir dispute have loomed large in my life.
	For too long the beautiful region of Kashmir, often described as paradise on earth, has been caught in one of the world’s most dangerous conflicts, but it is a conflict that is little reported and often does not get the media and global political attention that it needs and deserves. I am grateful, therefore, that this debate has given us an opportunity to focus on the issue. I know, too, that many British Kashmiris are grateful to the all-party group on Kashmir and Sultan Mehmood Chaudhry, a former Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir, for their efforts to raise the profile of this dispute and to secure political debate and action.
	The failure to resolve the Kashmir dispute, and particularly the failure to give effect to UN resolutions from the 1940s urging a plebiscite in Kashmir so that the Kashmiri people can determine their own future, has resulted in an uprising in Indian-administered Kashmir, the suppression of which, according to Amnesty International’s “lawless law” report, has led to grave human rights violations. The report highlights disturbing and unacceptable cases of abuse, with the application of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978, in particular, undermining efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution. Amnesty International found that many cases in which the Public Safety Act had been applied involved length periods of illegal detention of political activists seeking Kashmiri independence, in violation of Indian national law as well as international law. Many cases featured allegations of torture and other forms of ill treatment being used to coerce people into making confessions.
	One of the most offensive features of the Public Safety Act is that it provides for immunity from prosecution for officials operating under it, thereby granting impunity for human rights violations under the law. The application of the Act, together with the discovery of mass graves in Kashmir, the Mumbai attacks in 2008 and Kashmir’s bloody summer of 2010, have undermined the prospects for a resolution of the dispute.

Lyn Brown: My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech, and I am proud to be sitting here listening to her. Does she agree that India should accept the findings of the commission on the mass graves in Kashmir?

Shabana Mahmood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I endorse her contribution. I know that she, too, is a passionate advocate of human rights on the Indian subcontinent.
	A resolution is needed, desperately and urgently. The world, and especially the people of Kashmir, cannot afford for India and Pakistan to be engaged in perpetual dispute over the region. The human cost is too great. The partition of the two countries in 1947 resulted in hundreds of thousands dead. In the three wars that have been fought between the two states more than 15,000 people have died, and the estimates of the number of dead following the uprisings in Kashmir range from 40,000 to 100,000. Both countries spend too much of their budgets on defence; that money should be channelled into eradicating poverty and promoting health, education and human rights. India and Pakistan have both acquired nuclear weapons, and the fear that the hostility between the two countries, which springs from a mix of religion, history and territory, might change quickly into armed conflict is very real and never too far away. Meanwhile the people of Kashmir continue to suffer, so a resolution of the dispute deserves and demands our attention, and talks must be pursued with vigour on all sides.

John Hemming: Does the hon. Lady agree that this debate shows that we are not forgetting Kashmir? The treatment of the people of Kashmir is key, and we will not ignore that.

Shabana Mahmood: I endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments. As I have said, I am grateful that we are having this debate today.
	I said that all sides needed to pursue a solution with vigour, because too often the rest of the world sees only India and Pakistan as the main contestants in the dispute. It is my contention, however, that the Kashmiri people themselves are the central party and should be treated as such, as it is their future that is at the heart of the dispute.
	I also think that the British Government have a vital role to play, not only because of our history but because our country is home to large diaspora communities from India, Pakistan and Kashmir. We therefore have a unique insight into the intricacies of the dispute, and an important role to play in achieving its resolution. We should be a critical friend to both India and Pakistan, and a strong advocate of the rights of Kashmiris. They are a strong, resilient, proud, generous and passionate people, and their land is a place of great natural beauty and potential. Their plight demands our attention, and they deserve our efforts to bring the injustice that they have suffered to an end.

Lee Scott: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and the others who have secured this joint debate. I also assure my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) that I intend to ask for justice for all in Sri Lanka.

Brian Binley: I am delighted.

Lee Scott: I knew that he would be pleased to hear that.
	As we have heard from the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), it seems that we are not allowed to debate in our House of Commons issues that affect our constituents. Well I can assure the authorities in India and Sri Lanka that we are perfectly at liberty to discuss items that affect our constituents, their lives and their families.
	I want to focus today on Sri Lanka. We have seen reports from the United Nations that 40,000 innocent women and children were massacred at the end of the conflict. When I raised the matter with the Sri Lankan authorities, I was told that I was wrong and that the Channel 4 programme “Sri Lanka’s Killing Field”, for which I pay tribute to Channel 4, was also wrong. I have said that there should be an independent international inquiry—if I am wrong, such an inquiry would surely show that the Sri Lankan authorities were innocent and I would apologise—but that has been turned down. There must be justice for all in Sri Lanka—I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South about that—but that must include justice for the Tamil people, who must receive answers to some important questions.

Robert Halfon: I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech and for co-authoring today’s motion. Does he recognise that as well as the thousands and thousands of Tamils who were killed by the Sri Lankan regime, 17,000 Tamils are still caged behind barbed wire and another nearly 200,000 in transit camps have been refused permission to return to their homes?

Lee Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend that it surely cannot take two years—it is now some two years since the conflict ended—to decide whether somebody is a terrorist or whether they should stand trial; nor should it take two years for those trials to take place. That certainly should have happened by now. I would add that there are still children in some of the camps who are four or five years old, and I have yet to meet an 18-month-old terrorist.

Gavin Barwell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for the passion that he brings to this issue. Does he agree that our constituents have a right to know who was responsible for the deaths of their family members in Sri Lanka and that the record of the Sri Lankan Government to date suggests that they will not get that answer from the Sri Lankan authorities?

Lee Scott: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct: there should be answers to those questions.

Brian Binley: As ever, my hon. Friend is most generous in giving way. I have visited the Puttalam camp on the west coast of Sri Lanka, which holds 160,000 Tamils who were driven out from the north mainly through fear of the actions of the Tamil Tigers, and I know that because I talked to those people without any regard to the Sri Lankan authorities and that is what they told me. Does my hon. Friend accept that?

Lee Scott: I obviously accept what my hon. Friend says; equally, however, we saw on our TV screens only
	recently that people in Libya said one thing when they were interviewed at first and something quite separate a few weeks later.

Nick de Bois: My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way. I have listened to the recent exchanges, but does he not agree that the most important thing that should come out of today’s debate is the need not to lose sight of justice for all?

Lee Scott: I totally agree and reiterate that there must be justice for all. I would never say that there should not be.
	In the short time left to me—that is, in this debate, not beyond that—I would like to raise a number of issues. I have said in the past that, when the conflict ended, a number of babies and children below the age of 12 were not accounted for. I have asked the Sri Lankan high commission to share with me what happened to those babies and young children. To this day I have not received an answer. I will continue to follow that up, but I would also ask the Minister to look into the matter, just as I have asked our high commissioner in Colombo.
	We are also getting sad reports of what are called “grease devils”. These are men who attack people after applying grease to their bodies so as not to be captured by the authorities. They then run into military camps or police stations, having attacked their victims—normally women—in their homes. I am not casting any aspersions against anyone as to who they might be, but I would like to see the practice stopped and the perpetrators caught. I would also like to ask what has happened to the elderly and disabled people who were left behind at the end of the conflict, on 18 May 2009, because they are still unaccounted for.
	I have here a list of various things I could run through, but I shall not do that because of the time. What I want to say, to everyone in the House, is that we have a duty. We have a duty to represent not only our constituents, but those who have no voice, wherever they are in the world. We have a duty to stand up for innocent people, whether they be Tamil or Sinhalese, and to get justice.

Barry Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Amnesty International’s country report on Sri Lanka this year will be of equal concern to both the Tamil and Sinhalese communities? The report says that in the immediate aftermath of the elections, the Rajapaksa family,
	“which controlled five key ministries and more than 90 state institutions,”
	introduced a constitutional amendment in September that
	“removed the two-term limit on the presidency”.

Lee Scott: Yes, that is a great concern. Again, individual action is needed on all these items.
	Today, however, we are here to speak about human rights on the Indian subcontinent. We have to speak about human rights in Sri Lanka; we have to get justice for the Tamil people. If we do not get it, we will all have let those people down. I, for one, will continue to do
	everything in my power—whoever I upset, whether they be colleagues or not—to continue to try to get that justice for the Tamil people. We have said that we will look at the situation in November to see whether the Sri Lanka Government have failed to take action. It is now mid-September, so it is not long till November. I hope that, for everyone’s benefit, the Sri Lanka Government will allow an independent international investigation into what happened. I believe that that is what we must go for. I know that the Minister stands up for the rights of all in this area, so I hope that will happen.

Ian Austin: It is a privilege to follow such a passionate and well-informed speech by the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott). In common with other Members, I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) for making the arrangements to enable it to take place.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) said, there are significant numbers of people of Kashmiri origin across the UK. The vast majority of my constituents from the Indian subcontinent are of Kashmiri origin, so this debate has provoked great interest not just in Ladywood, but in Dudley, too. I want to pay tribute to this community’s contribution to life in Dudley—to its economic, social, cultural and political life—since the ’60s when people from Kashmir first came to the town. I want to place on the record my thanks and gratitude for their support and friendship and for their wise advice—not just on the issue we are discussing today, but on so many other issues, as well. They believe that the people of both Pakistan and India deserve peace and prosperity and that this ongoing dispute is hindering the progress that can be achieved towards both.
	Prosperity and peace in the long term requires a resolution between these two nuclear forces, because the stability of the region as a whole depends on a just solution. Given the amount of bloodshed that has arisen from this issue—bin Laden used the Kashmir issue as one of the reasons for al-Qaeda’s attacks on the west—surely the only route to long-lasting peace is through the democratic route. I believe we have to be absolutely clear that the future of Kashmir must be decided by the people of Kashmir, because the only way in which we will see justice for the Kashmiri people is through the right to self-determination, agreed by India in the UN and supported by the UK Government. That is the basic democratic principle—a principle that the west has supported in other countries, and one that we should support in relation to Kashmir.
	I would like to see our Government urge India and Pakistan to progress the talks that have recently started again, albeit in a low-level way. Our historic role in the region places on Britain a responsibility to do all it can to help bring about a speedy resolution to the dispute. We should stand ready to assist in the process—by encouraging economic development, by improving education and health care systems, and particularly by supporting peaceful elements in civil society.
	I believe that the UK must also take a number of other steps. We condemn terrorist attacks wherever they occur—and quite right, too—but the Indian military
	has committed human rights atrocities against Kashmiris since the last India-Pakistan war in 1999, so we should be very clear about condemning those attacks and calling for an immediate stop to human rights violations. Human rights abuses have also been carried out by some terrorist groups against Indian targets. We need to see the enforcement and implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and UN monitoring of the situation. Crucially, people in Kashmir have as much of a right to a free press as we take for granted in the UK.
	Finally, the Government could exploit much more effectively the expertise and experience in communities such as mine here in the UK, so I invite the Minister to come to Dudley to hear directly from my constituents their views on achieving a peaceful solution based on self-determination for the Kashmiri people.

Jonathan Lord: My constituency has a large Kashmiri community, many of whom worship together at the Shah Jahan mosque, which is the UK’s oldest purpose-built mosque. Not all members of the Muslim community in Woking have roots and family in Kashmir, but a significant portion do, some of whom are in the Gallery today. The community is well established and contributes greatly to many areas of life in Woking, including local politics. I am pleased that last year we had our first Muslim mayor, and first Kashmiri mayor, Mohammed Iqbal, who was a wonderful civic ambassador for our town. I welcome the chance to speak in the House about the human rights situation in the subcontinent and especially in Kashmir, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on his part in securing the debate.
	The Foreign Office reports that human rights abuses continue each year on both sides of the line of control. Last year, violent clashes in Indian-controlled Kashmir saw about 100 civilians killed, and Amnesty’s recent report concluded that the state of Jammu and Kashmir is holding hundreds of people each year without charge or trial. Any such human rights abuses should be condemned, no matter what the political or historical background. But when the problem is political and historical, the violence and abuse is likely finally to come to an end in the region only when a diplomatic solution is found.
	The region has suffered greatly in the past few years, not just from the ongoing instability, but from the devastating earthquake in 2005 and the floods in 2010. I hope that the next couple of years will see more positive developments and a return to diplomatic talks that will pave the way to security and the right to self-determination.
	It should be recognised that the UK not only has strong historic links to the region but plays a major aid role. UK taxpayers’ money has repaired 450,000 properties and built 16 new schools and 40 new bridges in Azad Kashmir as part of the earthquake reconstruction and rehabilitation programme. Additional money was raised through the generosity of British citizens, as I witnessed at countless local fundraising events and street stalls hosted and led by our Muslim community in Woking. Further, more than £1 million has been spent by UK taxpayers in the past five years via the conflict pool that goes towards support for human rights, conflict prevention and peace-building efforts. Projects such as educational
	programmes in schools that are vulnerable to militant influence, and the promotion of civil society exchanges across the line of control, are highly worth while, and I hope that the funding of such programmes will continue.
	Everyone knows that progress will be slow and that resolutions to disputes such as that affecting Kashmir will not be found overnight, but every long journey starts with just one step. There is now some sort of dialogue between India and Pakistan about Kashmir. There has been talk of the possibility of a new era of diplomacy; the new Pakistan Foreign Minister’s recent visit to India showed signs of progress, with additional agreements about trade over the border. Sustained and composite dialogue, however, is not yet forthcoming. [Interruption.] On such an important issue, we could do with less backchat from some Members on the Labour Benches, because everyone in the Chamber deserves to be listened to.
	The Government’s long-standing position is that it is not the UK’s role to be initiating talks or identifying mediators for such talks, and I understand the reasons for that. With the Minister, I spoke back in 1997 to a group of Oldham Kashmiris about this very issue, but I fear that we are not much further on. However, I welcome the Government’s recognition of the people of Kashmir’s desire for self-determination. The Government must know that the prospect of achieving long-term stability in the region, and an end to the kind of violence and human rights abuse that occurred last year, will take a major step forward only when India and Pakistan return to composite and regular dialogue.
	In the quiet, measured yet determined way that our Foreign Office is capable of, I hope that it will do everything appropriate that it can to encourage India and Pakistan themselves to initiate proper dialogue and talks. This country must always stand up for the proud Kashmiri people who have been the real victims for so long—for too long—in this terrible historic dispute.

Siobhain McDonagh: The civil war in Sri Lanka was one of the region’s most dreadful conflicts of recent times. In its last five months alone, 100,000 people were killed, 40,000 of them civilians. War crimes took place. The United Nations found serious violations of international humanitarian law, and the European Commission described
	“Unlawful killings perpetrated by soldiers, police and…groups with ties to the Government”.
	Earlier this year, Channel 4 screened a devastating documentary using video film from victims and perpetrators that proved, according to the UN rapporteur, “definitive war crimes”. It showed hospitals and so-called safe zones being targeted for bombing, people executed in cold blood and at point-blank range, and soldiers joking about women who had been sexually assaulted and shot dead as they piled their naked bodies on the backs of lorries. I commend Channel 4, and reporters such as Jonathan Miller, for continuing to investigate the harrowing story.
	Even after the war, more than 300,000 Tamils were held in camps, and although most have been released, the International Crisis Group says that they were sent to places that were
	“devoid of the most basic amenities.”
	Many still live under canvas, and 3,000 are still in “rehabilitation” camps, held without charge and without any access to legal help. Sri Lanka’s military continue to control civilian life in Tamil areas, including aid, and routinely steal Tamil property for use by military personnel and their families.
	The President of Sri Lanka, a probable war crimes suspect, has taken on enormous powers over the judiciary and policing, limiting the courts’ ability to prevent abuses of civil rights. The Elders, an international group, has condemned Sri Lanka for
	“persecution, intimidation, assassination and disappearance of government critics, political opponents, journalists and human rights defenders.”
	Independent overseas reporters are not permitted. As the International Crisis Group says,
	“Reconciliation after long periods of conflict never happens quickly. But in Sri Lanka there is a serious risk it may not happen at all.”
	Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission consists of people who supported the Sri Lankan Government’s actions during the civil war. The Government say of the LLRC’s job that
	“what happened in the past must be relegated to history”,
	although, as the UN stresses,
	“not to hold accountable those who committed serious crimes...is a clear violation of Sri Lanka’s international obligations and is not a permissible transitional justice option.”
	Gordon Weiss, the former UN spokesperson in Sri Lanka, has said:
	“This is Sri Lanka’s Srebrenica moment. In fact, it’s a Srebrenica moment for the rest of the world.”
	I agree. The world must say to other Governments that there is nothing to be gained from taking the Sri Lankan option of brutal repression and war crimes.
	The last UK Government, thanks—to be fair—to the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), brought an end to GSP plus, the generalised system of preferences that led to a preferential trading agreement between Europe and Sri Lanka, voted against the International Monetary Fund’s $2.5 billion deal with Sri Lanka, and prevented it from hosting a Commonwealth summit. Britain must not lose that lead. Elsewhere, Switzerland and Germany have just forced Sri Lanka to recall a senior diplomat after accusations that he made troops fire on civilians and took part in torture and summary executions. However, another man implicated in similar crimes, Major-General Prasanna Silva, has just been appointed a military attaché to the UK. I call on the Minister to reassure the House that he will not permit Major-General Silva to serve here. I want Britain to prove its place at the head of the international community, and I hope that the Minister can enable it to do so by removing this man’s diplomatic privileges.
	Britain must take a brave and principled lead—just as we did in Kosovo and, with France, in Libya—and do all that it can to ensure that a full independent international investigation of war crimes takes place. Those of us who believe in justice want the people responsible to be held to account, just as all of us would agree about Colonel Gaddafi, Radovan Karadzic and Charles Taylor. We cannot allow the international community to slip
	back to the cosy days of 2009, when the UN disgracefully ignored calls for a war crimes investigation, or when the Secretary-General spoke of Sri Lanka’s “tremendous efforts”. Sri Lanka still wants to host the Commonwealth summit in 2013. We should be clearly saying “No, not until there is a fully independent, UN-led international inquiry.” I hope that if one thing comes out of today’s debate, it will be that commitment.

Andrew Griffiths: May I join other Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and for Ilford North (Mr Scott), who helped to secure the debate? I also pay tribute to the previous Member for Wycombe, who did a lot of work on Kashmir. He came to my constituency to speak to my Kashmiri community on a number of occasions, and he continues to help and offer assistance. I also pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee. In holding this debate, it has sent a clear message to both the Kashmiri and the Tamil and Sri Lankan communities that this Parliament is listening, and that Members are prepared to debate the issues that are of greatest concern to our constituents.

Steven Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great things about the Backbench Business Committee is that it chooses issues for debate thoroughly independently of Government policy, as has been shown today?

Andrew Griffiths: I could not agree more. I was initially sceptical about the Backbench Business Committee and what it could achieve, but I only have to look up at the full Public Gallery and consider the number of e-mails and letters I have received over the past few days, to be reminded that the subjects it chooses for discussion are highly relevant to our constituents.
	I also want to thank the Minister. In our dealings on the Kashmir issue, he has always been helpful, and his door has always been open. He has also laid at our disposal the help of his officials, who have done a great job in providing us with information and assistance. I am grateful for that.
	I speak on this subject as vice-chairman of the all-party groups on both Pakistan and Kashmir, and, most importantly, as an MP who represents more than 4,500 Kashmiri constituents. When I first became the parliamentary candidate for Burton, I went along to the local community centres and mosques to talk to the Kashmiris in my constituency. Although we addressed all the issues that matter to them, such as education and policing, time and again they would return to the burning issue of Kashmir and ask for our help. It was with that experience in mind that I pledged to be the first MP for Burton ever to visit Kashmir.

Anas Sarwar: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his powerful speech. Does he share the Kashmiris’ frustration about this dispute being one of the longest in our history? It involves two countries that have nuclear weapons and it has caused three wars to take place, yet the international community does not appear to be taking it seriously enough.

Andrew Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman articulates the views of so many of my constituents. They ask, “Why isn’t it on television or in the newspapers? Why is what
	is happening in Kashmir not being reported here in Britain, and why is the international community not doing something about it?”

Nicholas Dakin: The hon. Gentleman sets out his points very well. Does he agree that today’s debate demonstrates that we are listening to the concerns of our constituents, and that we are keen to move the issue forward so that proper progress can be made on it internationally?

Andrew Griffiths: I agree, and I know that the hon. Gentleman does a great deal in this House on these issues. I congratulate him on that.

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman asked why the world was not doing something about Kashmir. Does he agree that that may have something to do with the Simla agreement, under which Pakistan and India agreed that they would settle the issue bilaterally without outside interference, and in a completely peaceful way?

Andrew Griffiths: I am afraid that I would agree more if we had seen more proactive responses from both Pakistan and India. Having been to the Pakistan-administered side of Kashmir and spoken to many people, I found it frustrating to see that many politicians there are inhibiting the efforts to find a solution.

Virendra Sharma: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Griffiths: I will make some progress, if I may, as time is short and I have given way on a number of occasions.
	I am reminded very much of what happens in respect of the Falkland Islands: every time there is a general election in Argentina, the issue of the Malvinas is brought up as a way of sabre rattling and winning votes, and a similar thing happens in both Pakistan and India. That is why it is incumbent on the UK to use any influence it has to move the situation forward.
	I have been to the Falkland Islands as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and I visited Gibraltar last year on holiday. I have spoken to Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders, so I know that the thing they have in common is their right to self-determination. They have the right to choose how they are governed and who governs them. That is at the heart of the Kashmir issue: it is about the fact that the people of Kashmir should have a right to self-determination and to choose their own path forward. I have seen the Pakistan-administered side of Kashmir for myself, and it is clear that that area has been devastated, not just because of the earthquake and the flood, but because of the way in which this trouble has held that region back. It is time that the United Kingdom—a Commonwealth country—used its best efforts to move this situation forward.

Rob Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not our colonial past that is important in resolving this issue, but our recent experience in trouble spots such as Northern Ireland?

Andrew Griffiths: I do. I also think that this is about our relationship with the area. We have a strong Pakistani diaspora in the UK and we have strong trading ties with
	India. We have a unique relationship with both those countries, which may allow us to get them around the table and move things forward.
	The situation in Kashmir matters for a number of reasons. First, because it is about self-determination and the right of the Kashmiris to choose. Secondly, because the two countries involved have nuclear weapons, so this potential flashpoint could have devastating consequences. Most importantly, it matters because the lives of too many Kashmiris are being devastated, on both sides of the line. I have spoken to too many families where grandparents have never seen their grandchildren or where children have not been able to return to see the grave of their mother or father. It is for those types of people that we have a responsibility to use our best efforts to help to move towards a solution. I know that the Minister has a heartfelt interest in this matter, and I know that, for the sake of all my Kashmiri constituents, he will do his best.

Fiona Mactaggart: First, may I apologise to the House for the fact that I will not be able to be here for the wind-ups, as I was already committed to chairing a meeting at 6 o’clock? I am grateful to the hon. Members who sponsored the proposal of this debate to the Backbench Business Committee, because we are debating this issue on the fourth international day of democracy, as nominated by the UN and celebrated by Parliaments throughout the world.
	This is the right day for us to be debating this subject of human rights in the Indian subcontinent, because human rights are a precursor to democracy; without basic human rights and the full protection of human rights, there is no prospect of genuine democracy. When representatives of regimes that are denying human rights complain, as they do sometimes, that, as a British parliamentarian, I should not be interfering in their internal matters, I am confident that I can reply that there are international standards of democracy and human rights. It is the duty of every democrat, particularly every democratically elected parliamentarian, to uphold those standards throughout the world, without fear or favour. That was put rather more poetically by constituents of mine, some of whom are in the Gallery, who signed a petition stating:
	“Human beings are like parts of a body, created from the same essence. When one part is hurt and in pain, the others cannot remain in peace and be quiet”.
	I will therefore focus on human rights in Kashmir, although my Sri Lankan constituents, who come from both Sinhala and Tamil communities, are well aware of my passionate commitment to human rights in that country. That was expressed when the former representative of the UK Government to Sri Lanka, Des Browne, came to address a meeting in Slough just 18 months ago.
	At the outset, I ought to say that I am a friend of both India and Pakistan, even at times when there are tensions between those two countries. I am also a friend of Kashmir, however, and of its people, who have not enjoyed full democratic and human rights since Britain left behind this bit of unfinished colonial business when we ceded control of India and Pakistan nearly 65 years ago.
	I was at Labour’s conference in 1995 when it resolved that Britain was under an obligation to seek a solution of the Kashmir issue. I am proud that Labour Foreign Secretaries from Robin Cook to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) have been willing, as they have worked to develop our relationship with that great democracy and growing economic power, India, to raise the uncomfortable issue of Kashmir. I am disappointed that the current Government do not feel the same duty, at least when they are in the territory of India. Whatever one’s view of the future of the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, there can be no doubt—

Andrew Griffiths: rose—

Fiona Mactaggart: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Griffiths: The hon. Lady makes a party political point about this Government and our commitment to Kashmir. Can she tell us just one thing her Government did to move the issue of Kashmir forward?

Fiona Mactaggart: As I have been saying, for some 65 years, this has been an issue—[ Interruption. ] If my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) wants to intervene to question my historical knowledge, he is welcome.
	For a long time, this subject has limped forward. British Foreign Secretaries have been prepared to raise the issue in Pakistan and India, even when it has been very unpopular. That is one thing that needs to happen—what we need is not silence about the issue, but a preparedness to stand up for human rights in public even when it is unpopular.
	At the moment, it is not possible in Kashmir for journalists to report basic protests such as those that followed the death of a boy who was hit by a police tear gas canister just this June. Only when the press is free to publish reports of protests and when voters feel safe as they walk to the ballot box will there be any chance of resolving this bitter dispute. To that end, I echo the call from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) for the repeal of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act and of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. If we succeed in making Kashmir a society where human rights are protected, what then? That goes to the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s question.
	I think Mr Hameed, the gravedigger at the martyrs’ graveyard in Indian-administered Kashmir’s capital, Srinagar, made the point very powerfully: “The solution to the problem will only be arrived at when India, Pakistan and Kashmiri people meet at the same table. Our kids pelt stones. The security services fire a bullet. What kind of democracy do we live in?” We need to ensure that the people of Kashmir live in a democracy and can determine their future. Until we protect their human rights, the possibility of a democratic resolution to the troubles that have divided that beautiful country for so long is lacking. I think the whole House agrees that democracy is the best way to resolve these issues and the whole House knows that without human rights, democracy cannot exist.

Jason McCartney: I start by paying tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), a fellow former Royal Air Force officer. I joined him and many other Members from both sides of the House in helping to secure the debate from the Backbench Business Committee, to which we are very grateful.
	I shall focus on Kashmir. I have spoken in Westminster Hall debates on Kashmir and at meetings of the all-party group for Kashmir, but this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak on human rights in Kashmir in this Chamber, and I am very grateful for it. My constituency in west Yorkshire has thousands of Kashmiris living in Thornton Lodge, Crosland Moor and Lockwood. They raise the situation in their homeland with me weekly, so I am proud to be speaking on their behalf.
	I fully understand that international issues are never straightforward, so to try to understand the dynamic of the region I undertook a private visit to Azad Jammu and Kashmir last November. I flew into Islamabad in Pakistan, and after delivering blankets, clothing and tents donated by the good folk of Huddersfield and Colne Valley to some of the flood-hit villages in the area of Nowshera in Pakistan, we crossed the border into AJK. I was based in the vibrant city of Mirpur—a fantastic place, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) rightly said—on the beautiful Mangla Dam lake. I was honoured to be invited for tea at the homes of families with loved ones who live in my constituency, but their love of tea is not the only close cultural link that the Kashmiris have with the UK. When I was invited to meet the Prime Minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Sardar Attique Khan, in Dadyal, I was welcomed by their military band, complete with bagpipes and kilts.
	I saw a beautiful and peaceful Pakistan-administered region of Kashmir, but time and again I have been told of human rights abuses in Indian-controlled Kashmir, some of which we have heard about in this Chamber in the past hour, so I fully appreciate that this is a region where terrorism and security concerns are rife. Of course our own previous Government have been accused of being implicated in activities such as rendition in the wider region. The position is not always black and white.
	An hour ago in Central Lobby, I bumped into a Kashmir-based journalist I met over there. As a former journalist, while I was in Kashmir I addressed a group of 50 Kashmiri journalists at the Press Club in Mirpur, and I stressed to them the importance of factual reporting. Wild accusations and the emotionally charged inflating of casualty figures do not help the cause of those campaigning for peace in the region. For example, yesterday I received an e-mail telling me of hundreds of unidentified graves, with the accusation that they contain the bodies of victims of unlawful killings and torture. I have no idea whether that is true; we must be wary of propaganda and deal in facts.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many Kashmiri journalists simply cannot report facts, because they cannot get press accreditation that will enable them to go into areas where the police are in control?

Jason McCartney: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I made that point myself, but journalists must not over-compensate for their inability to go to those areas by wildly inflating reports; they must stick to the facts. As a journalist I was sometimes frustrated by similar situations, which can be very difficult.

Lyn Brown: Mass graves should be investigated. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if India agreed to a commission, we could see the truth of the claims that are being made and end the torturous anxieties of many people in Kashmir, who are worried that their relatives may be languishing in such places and that they have no rest?

Jason McCartney: The hon. Lady must have had a sneaky peek at my speech because I will come to that in about 20 seconds.
	I welcome Amnesty International’s report on Kashmir, “A Lawless Law”, and want to highlight some of its conclusions, which I fully support. I call for a repeal of the Public Safety Act, which results in the long-term detention of people in cases where there is insufficient evidence for trial. I call on Indian-administered Kashmir to allow peaceful protests and exercise proper crowd control, and to carry out an independent, impartial and comprehensive investigation into all allegations of abuses, including the unmarked graves and allegations of torture. I call on the UK Government to keep Kashmir on their agenda and raise these issues with the Governments of Pakistan and India whenever they meet.

Andrew Griffiths: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and well informed speech. Does he agree that we must seek as a matter of urgency to improve the lives of Kashmiris by improving cross-border trade between Pakistan and India and into Kashmir and by allowing travel, particularly to enable family and loved ones to visit?

Jason McCartney: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There already have been some cross-border relations on opening up the border for trade. I was impressed by Prime Minister Khan’s attitude towards commerce, jobs and green technologies—he talked about wind turbines, which massively impressed me.

Virendra Sharma: Does the hon. Gentleman support and appreciate initiatives taken by the Pakistan and Indian Governments, with meetings at ministerial level, to find a peaceful formula to resolve the issue of Kashmir and related issues?

Jason McCartney: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. His office is on my corridor, so we will probably bump into each other and talk about this many more times. Yes, we want a peaceful solution and the best way to end war-war is to jaw-jaw and talk about these things, and I hope that the UK Government can be part of that.
	Some eagle-eyed Members might have noticed the little green badge that I am wearing—[ Interruption. ] I thank the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). It was given to me by the Prime Minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and it says, “Kashmir Seeks Attention”. Today, Kashmir has our attention, and all hon. Members in the Chamber should be very proud of that.

Denis MacShane: Kashmir is the forgotten tragedy of the contemporary world. No other people has suffered such pain, such loss, such despair, and, worst of all, such a sense that their demands for justice are being ignored by the rest of the world. Here in the House of Commons we need to face up to our failures.
	The first failure was the disastrous handling of the end of British imperialism in India. The second was the refusal of both India and Pakistan to abide by UN resolution 47, which stated:
	“the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.”
	That resolution was adopted in 1948; 63 years later, it has still not been implemented. The third failure is the refusal of successive British Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries of all parties to accept that Britain has an historical duty to work to allow the Kashmiri people to be free of the oppression under which they live.
	Kashmir is not a faraway country of which we know nothing. The British Kashmiri community is now nearly 1 million strong and is part of the warp and weft of today’s Britain, just as in the past Huguenots, Jews, Poles and Irish people came with their culture, faith, languages and ways of life and became part of our island nation. I think of many dear friends in Rotherham, such as Councillor Jahangir Akhtar, Councillor Shaukat Ali, Councillor Mahroof Hussain, Mrs Parveen Quereshi, and Lord Nazir Ahmed in the other place, as well as friends in Tinsley and Sheffield, who have educated me on the problem of Kashmir.
	According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch—irreproachable international organisations—as many as 100,000 Kashmiri Muslims have died since the end of the 1980s. That is a far higher death toll of Muslims than all of those killed in middle east conflicts in recent decades. Whereas the middle east conflict gets limitless geopolitical Government and media attention, the much great death toll in Kashmir is ignored. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights reports that 1.5 million refugees have been forced over the years to seek asylum across the border in Pakistan or Azad Kashmir.
	In December last year, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary after receiving a report from the International Committee of the Red Cross. Its officials interviewed under private conditions 1,296 people held by India. Among them 498 had suffered torture from electricity; 381 had been suspended from the ceiling; 294 had muscles crushed in their legs by prison personnel sitting on a bar placed across their thighs; 181 had their legs stretched by being “split 180 degrees”; and 302 “sexual” cases were reported involving rape or sexual assault. The ICRC stated:
	“The abuse always takes place in the presence of officers”
	from India.

Fiona Mactaggart: As a former journalist, would my right hon. Friend like to speculate on why those horrible tortures have failed to reach our media?

Denis MacShane: There is a serious problem in that this is the first debate dedicated to this subject in my 17 years in the House. I very much respect the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the
	hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), but Ministers have not raised this issue at a sufficiently high level. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the Foreign Secretary will raise that recent Red Cross report with India at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference next month.
	A few years ago the world was shocked at the death of 8,000 European Muslims in Srebrenica and the sight of 250,000 Kosovan Muslims fleeing from Serb troops. Why has there been silence on 1.5 million Kashmiris being forced out of their homes or up to 100,000 Muslims killed by Indian forces?
	Just before he was elected, President Obama made the correct connection, noting that there would be no solution in Afghanistan without change in Pakistan, but he added that Pakistan needed help from India to resolve the Kashmir question. Afghanistan, Pakistan, India—the API triangle that lies at the heart of any future for this vital world region. Sadly, once in office President Obama dropped India, out of his desire to see movement and, as a result, got no movement at all, despite the best efforts of the late Richard Holbrooke. India is part of the problem, as is Pakistan. India must be part of the solution, as must Pakistan. Until the global community faces down India’s refusal to accept responsibility for its actions in Kashmir, there will be no peace in the region. It is time to break the silence that grips British Ministers.

Lilian Greenwood: I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that members of the British Kashmiri community, many of whom are watching from the Gallery and elsewhere, will be delighted that we are having this debate, but it will not be worthwhile if it does not result in action by our Government to try to secure peace in that part of the world.

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. We do not want a curtain of silence to fall at 6 o’clock, when the Minister sits down at the end of his winding-up speech. This debate must be the beginning, not the end, of Britain finally accepting our responsibilities on behalf of our fellow British citizens for the great wrongs that have been done in Kashmir.
	Britain might feel that it has no locus standi on Kashmir—as a former Minister I remember those discussions in the Foreign Office, and on this issue I have only respect for the current Foreign Office team—in which case, let the Government ask the European Union to set up a fact-finding mission to report on human rights abuses in Kashmir. Perhaps we could we ask respected world leaders, such as the former US President, Jimmy Carter, or the former Finnish President, Martti Ahtisaari, both Nobel peace prize winners, to mediate between Pakistan and India on Kashmir, while fully respecting the rights of the people of Kashmir, because this question must not be settled above their heads between New Delhi and Islamabad. Senator Mitchell’s intervention in Northern Ireland was extremely important in helping to bring peace there. Peace in Kashmir would be a Nobel peace prize worth striving for.
	Direct British rule in the Indian subcontinent lasted a mere 89 years, from 1858 to 1947. The denial of the
	rights of the people of Kashmir has so far lasted 63 years. Britain should do more to help find a solution and tell truth to power in both India and Pakistan.

James Wharton: We have already heard much discussion today of the value of human rights. Human rights are indivisible, self-evidently of great value and internationally applicable, as the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) explained rather more eloquently that I will attempt. Human rights must also be understood in context—the context of where a country has been and where it is trying to go. That does not devalue the human right itself or the right to the individuals there. When we comment on other nations, their actions or the actions of those within them, we must have a full understanding of the historical context and of what has happened there to lead to the situation today. It is against that background that I would like to talk about Sri Lanka.
	Sri Lanka has only recently emerged from three decades of horrendous civil war, a civil war that claimed countless thousands of lives, both in the north among the Tamil community and in the south among the Sinhalese majority, with Government Ministers, ordinary people and Ministers and representatives of foreign Government being killed throughout that time of great conflict. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the breakaway group in the north and east of the country, waged a war using terrorist tactics including assassinations, suicide attacks, vehicle bombs, attacks on trains and buses, and even attacks from the air, in order to try to force the Sri Lankan Government to accede to demands for a breakaway state within what they perceived to be the boundaries of their own nation. Years of negotiations on ceasefires and attempts to bring an end to the hostilities failed or made no real progress, with neither side sufficiently trusting the other.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend talks about history and human rights, and that is important. Before British colonisation of Sri Lanka the Tamils had their own kingdom in the north. Does he not agree that one of the problems that we face today arises from the effects of colonisation?

James Wharton: I agree that we, as the inheritors of the legacy of the British empire, have a duty to acknowledge our role in many of the problems that were created throughout the world by the way in which the empire ceased to be and by the legacies that we left behind. That is one reason why it is perfectly valid and right for this House to debate these issues today and for us as a nation to do what we can to set others on the right path by applying pressure and giving assistance where we can, so that where there are troubles and problems in the world we can make a small but, I hope, significant contribution to resolving them. In Sri Lanka, that legacy is part of its history, but its more recent history is that terrible civil war, which after years of negotiations had not been brought to an end and was continuing to hold back and drag down a country that has so much potential and could do so much for its own people and on the international stage.
	In 2006, the Sri Lankan Government launched a campaign to bring the civil war to an end. It was an effective but ruthless military campaign of the sort
	necessary to put down an organisation such as the LTTE using military means. We have heard much discussion of some of the atrocities that are alleged to have been committed during that campaign, but in the context in which it happened we must all understand that the LTTE was one of the worst oppressors of the Tamil people during and before the conflict. That context must be understood and appreciated: the LTTE fought using civilian clothes, used civilians as human shields and had thousands of child soldiers in the field.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever might have happened during what was a terrible conflict, which nobody can deny, it still does not change the fact that civilians were massacred after the event?

James Wharton: My hon. Friend is of course right, and that is why I started my speech by talking about the value of human rights and their importance objectively, but that does not mean that the context in which we comment on other countries is not important, and that is what I want to discuss in my closing remarks.
	That campaign having ended, we must acknowledge where Sri Lanka is and where it is going; where it is today and where it is going tomorrow. It is all too easy to be consistently critical of others who fall short of the standards that we may choose to set for them ourselves, but we should not do so without acknowledging where progress is being made. The end of the campaign has brought great benefits to Sri Lanka. We have seen the eradication of terrorism on the island, and elections are taking place in the north and east, as those areas join what is becoming a mature democracy throughout the rest of Sri Lanka.

Siobhain McDonagh: Does the hon. Gentleman think that democratically elected Governments should be held to a higher standard than any other group or institution in society? Does he think that it is legitimate for a democratically elected Government to drop cluster bombs on hospitals?

James Wharton: No, I do not. The hon. Lady will be unsurprised to hear that I do not believe that it is legitimate for a Government, whether democratically elected or not, to drop cluster bombs on hospitals. As I conclude my comments, however, I shall turn to the issue of reconciliation—what is being done, what must be done, what should be done and what we all would like to be done—in Sri Lanka.
	First, I shall comment on some of the positive results of the conclusion to a three-decade-long civil war that claimed so many lives. The right to dissent and to freedom of expression in the north and east is now stronger than it had been for the preceding 30 years. De-mining operations are starting to make real progress in clearing up the hundreds of thousands of landmines and unexploded ordnance that litter the Sri Lankan countryside. The British Government are making a contribution to that work through DFID, the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust, clearing up about 100,000 landmines and unexploded ordnance throughout the country.
	The rehabilitation and re-homing of former LTTE combatants and of displaced people is well under way. Some 300,000 were displaced by the conflict, but only about 6,000 are now left in the welfare camps, because
	they have been given the opportunity, facilitated by the work of the Sri Lankan Government, to go home. The reconciliation and accountability that is such an important part of Sri Lanka moving forward has begun. The LLRC, although it has come in for some criticism today, has not yet given its final recommendations, and we should reserve judgment until it reports. Only recently, the Sri Lankan Government have approved a national action plan for the development of human rights that will, I hope, be implemented over the coming years, so that we are able to judge them on its success.
	A lot of progress still needs to be made. We must not be an uncritical friend of Sri Lanka’s, but we must be a friend of Sri Lanka and of the Sri Lankan people. I hope that the House will support that.

Barry Gardiner: Today a delegation from Conservative Friends of India heads off to the subcontinent. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) has ensured that when they land in Delhi they will walk into a major media storm. The UK Parliament should be very wary of intervening in the dispute over Kashmir.
	Members have talked about the UN resolution and the plebiscite, but the resolution had a condition—

Stephen Pound: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) rose on a point of order as a result of a tweet that he had received, I attempted to intervene on him, but so powerful was his flow that I could not. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) confirm that when a newspaper makes a statement through social media, it does not speak for the Government of the Republic of India, and these are two very separate matters?

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend is right, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend knew precisely that when he made his “nearly a point of order”, as Mr Deputy Speaker called it.
	The UN resolution attached a condition to the holding of the plebiscite—the withdrawal of the Pakistani forces that had invaded that part of Kashmir in 1949 when the maharajah of the state of Jammu and Kashmir had vacillated over whether to become part of India or part of Pakistan. The invasion precipitated the maharajah to jump towards India, with the consequences that we have seen since.
	Of course, it is absolutely right that this House should always take a keen interest in the protection of human rights around the world, but hon. Members and members of the public watching this debate must think there is a certain irony in the fact that although the hon. Member for Wycombe sought to raise his concern about human rights issues in India, it is not India but five of India’s closest border neighbours, including Pakistan, that the 2011 “Failed States Index” lists among the 50 most failed states in the world.

Steven Baker: I tried to approach this with considerable caution. I am not sorry if the Indian media pick up on this issue, as I would like our constituents’ concerns to be given the widest publicity. I paid tribute to India as
	the world’s largest democracy and a country with institutions based on our own which seek to reinforce the rule of law, and noted that Indian Government institutions have recognised many of these human rights abuses. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, on the whole, the House has sought to be balanced.

Barry Gardiner: I accept the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman says that he has contributed to the debate, and I would not wish to challenge that. However, if one looks at the immediate neighbours surrounding India, one will often find that there is far greater cause for concern in those jurisdictions than in India.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Shabana Mahmood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barry Gardiner: No, I will not.
	Some of the worst human rights abuses of recent memory have occurred in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, in a part of the world where, frankly, India stands out as a beacon of democracy on the subcontinent. The relations between India and the UK, at both a trade and a strategic level, are excellent. They reached new levels of cordiality after Tony Blair’s visit in 2005, when the two Prime Ministers signed the New Delhi declaration, and they have been further strengthened by the current Prime Minister’s visit last year. Economically and culturally, as well as strategically, it would be a retrograde step should a debate such as this sour those excellent relations.
	I first visited Kashmir in 2000, when I took a delegation of MPs on a fact-finding visit. We visited at a particularly important time: two years previously, both India and Pakistan had declared themselves nuclear weapon states. Pakistan had announced that it would adopt a doctrine of first use in certain circumstances. India had stated to the international community that it would never use nuclear weapons first. It was a time of great tension.
	In 1999, Atal Bihari Vajpayee travelled to Pakistan to meet Nawaz Sharif. It had been hoped that that might reduce the tension between the two states and all seemed well. Three months later, however, Pakistan-based militants invaded across the border at Kargil on the line of control into India. A bloody border conflict started in what became known as the phoney war. That invasion directly violated the Simla agreement of 1972, in which both nations agreed to resolve the issue of Kashmir by exclusively peaceful means.
	President Clinton summoned Nawaz Sharif to the White House and persuaded him to withdraw Pakistani forces from Kargil. The confrontation de-escalated until Nawaz Sharif was overthrown by General Musharraf, who had been the key architect of the Kargil incursion. In 2000, Musharraf proclaimed himself the new President of Pakistan, without the benefit of a general election. In the following months, India was subjected to some of the most vile and well-orchestrated state-sponsored terrorist attacks ever seen, including the hijacking of an Air India flight, the attack on the temple at Gandhinagar and, of course, the attack on the Indian Parliament.
	Despite the constant threat to India’s citizens from hostile parties at home and abroad claiming thousands of lives every year, India has continued to stand for
	tolerance and human rights in that part of the world. Terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed have continued to bombard India with state-sponsored terrorism supported by Inter-Services Intelligence.
	It is against that background that we must consider today’s Amnesty International report. The report documents detentions under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act and makes some specific allegations. It is right that this House should consider them, albeit in the context of public safety that I have outlined. The report relates to more than 600 individuals detained under the Public Safety Act between 2003 and May 2010 when the research was conducted. That is fewer than 90 people each year for seven years. Amnesty states:
	“The research shows that instead of using the institutions, procedures and human rights safeguards of ordinary criminal justice, the authorities are using the PSA to secure the long-term detention of political activists, suspected members or supporters of armed groups and a range of other individuals against whom there is insufficient evidence for a trial or conviction”.
	That sounds remarkably similar, as the hon. Member for Wycombe admitted, to this country’s Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. On 14 July last year, he voted to keep detention at 28 days and I think I voted to bring it down to 14 days.
	At this year’s Reith lectures, Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, talking about security, said that
	“not all intelligence can be turned into evidence. It can fall well short. As I have said before, of evidential standards, hearsay at third hand, things said, things overheard, things seen and open to varying interpretation, rarely clear-cut even with the benefit of hindsight…and which any judge would unhesitatingly kick out even if the prosecution thought them useable. That requires us to accept that not everyone who presents a threat can be prosecuted.”
	It is in that light that we need to consider these allegations.

Brian Binley: May I first declare that I have an interest? I am the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Sri Lanka and I visited that country with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) at the behest of the Sri Lankan Government to review the reparations resulting from the tsunami.
	Sri Lanka is a country that is coming to terms with the consequences of considerable strife and conflict. It takes time to overcome the horrors of conflict. We should therefore tread carefully and be cautious of making judgments without very clear facts and evidence. We should be especially careful not to give fuel to the most blatant of propaganda, not least because we experienced that in a part of our nation and should understand a little more.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend believe that the Channel 4 programme and the UN report were both propaganda?

Brian Binley: I think that the Channel 4 programme is open to question and that those questions have not been answered. However, the United Nations report is credible and we should be cognisant of that fact. The British Government have also recognised that, and it is right to call for an independent, thorough and credible investigation into the allegations of violations of human rights laws. I totally support such
	an investigation, but it should be into the violations on both sides of the conflict. I fear that point has been missed a little today.
	The roots of the conflict run very deep. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam fought a separatist campaign for the best part of 30 years and we have heard some of the horrors of that campaign from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott). The Channel 4 documentary painted a truly horrendous picture, but we are not sure that it told the whole story. Images were brutal, horrific and degrading and if they were true that was totally unacceptable and intolerable, but nothing in the broadcast showed direct evidence of the Sri Lankan Government’s culpability and we must be sure of that before we start talking about it.

Lee Scott: rose —

Brian Binley: Before my hon. Friend leaps to his feet, let me say that I think he has seen too many television documentaries to believe everything that he sees on our television programmes.

Lee Scott: My hon. Friend is being most generous in giving way again. If he agrees that there should be an independent inquiry, as he has said, does he agree that the Sri Lankan Government should agree to such an inquiry? Obviously, it would show them to be innocent if they are.

Brian Binley: I agree with my hon. Friend and I press the Sri Lankan Government to do so.
	Contrary to what the broadcast stated, every effort was made by the Sri Lankan Government to extract civilians from the combat zone during the conflict. Local journalists were given access to the front line and members of the Sri Lankan armed forces sacrificed their lives to save about 300,000 civilians trapped by Tamil Tigers. Those are not my words but those of Gordon Weiss, the former UN spokesman in Sri Lanka, who has written:
	“It remains a credit to many of the front line SLA (Sri Lanka Army) soldiers that, despite odd cruel exceptions, they so often seem to have made the effort to draw civilians out from the morass of fighting ahead of them in an attempt to save lives”—
	that from a hostile witness against Sri Lanka.

Robert Halfon: On many issues, my hon. Friend and I are at one, but on this one I think we take a very different view. He has quoted one United Nations individual, so may I quote the former President of Finland who is an international mediator? He has said:
	“Countries operating outside international norms watch each other carefully. They will be taking courage from Sri Lanka’s apparent success at avoiding international reproach. This is a worry for all those who want to see more democracy, greater respect for human rights and less violence in the world.”

Brian Binley: Of course, I accept that statement from my hon. Friend with no problem whatever.

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being customarily generous in giving way, but I join some of his hon. Friends and many Opposition Members who share concerns about the way in which Sri Lanka has conducted itself, particularly since the end of the conflict. It is a matter of record as, surely, he will be generous to recognise, that the International Committee of the Red
	Cross was for far too long denied access to prisons in Sri Lanka, which held many of those whom the Sri Lankan Government had chosen to detain.

Brian Binley: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and I have made those concerns known to the Sri Lankan Government.
	Sri Lanka needs a chance to heal, but that will not happen in an atmosphere of hiatus and emotive external interventions. We must all be careful because, as has been said, we share responsibility for the situation. That is clear, and we have to do all we can to help the Sri Lankan Government, who are trying to make considerable advances. They are trying to address the alleged crimes and human rights abuses and they are trying to provide a credible process for overcoming the issues facing internally displaced people. They are trying to achieve a sustainable political settlement, including on devolution, and those casting aspersions need to be careful about the statements that they make of what they say are facts but often are not.
	As stated, one consequence of the conflict has been the significant numbers of internally displaced persons. I said that I had visited Puttalam, where I saw 160,000 people in the most terrible conditions, and that I talked to many of them. They said that they were displaced by shelling and demolition. Equally, though, some had been displaced by, and were scared of, the Tamil Tigers. That needs to be understood as well, if we are to be balanced in our judgment.

Lee Scott: rose—

Brian Binley: I cannot afford the time.
	The process of reconstruction is taking longer than we would like, but Sri Lanka is a small country and we need to recognise that its resources are limited too. I believe that we should give Sri Lanka every opportunity and support to help them create a united country. I hope that that succeeds, as we must all do, but equally I hope that the independent inquiry will take place, because it will put to rest some of the propaganda that is actually hindering progress in that nation.

John McDonnell: I want to mention two issues that have been raised with me by constituents. The first concerns India and the second Sri Lanka. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), I classify myself as a friend of India. I can do nothing else—I am married to a Goan and have only just come back from visiting my in-laws in Goa. I celebrate India’s success in recent years. I celebrate its politics. I witnessed the Anna Hazare campaign of Gandhian peaceful direct action to address corrupt politicians. I only wish that we had had such a thing here a few years ago—it might have helped when the Members’ expenses scandal was exposed. I also celebrate the nature of the way in which India is developing its economy. I wish that there was greater redistribution of wealth, but at least there is a dynamism in the economy itself.
	In celebrating India’s progress, I feel that I have the right—as a friend of India—to draw attention to a continuing blemish on the Indian constitution. I am talking about the continued acceptance of the death penalty. There are currently 324 prisoners on death row
	in India, and although there has not been an execution for seven years, the political climate has changed, and there is a real fear of an imminent implementation of the death penalty. I want to use the Floor of the House to make an appeal on behalf of my constituents for the life of one person in particular, Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, whose case I have raised over the years with a number of colleagues. Unfortunately, he is at imminent risk of execution in New Delhi.

Fiona Mactaggart: Would my hon. Friend comment on the fact that when I was looking through my annual report, I discovered that the issue on which I had the biggest postbag from my constituents was Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar’s threatened execution by the Indian Government?

John McDonnell: There is real consternation among the community in this country and across the world. This case has been taken up by Amnesty International as one of its urgent appeals across the world. As I said, I want to use this platform to appeal to the Indian Government and the Indian President to address the case of Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar and to consider the abolition of the death penalty itself.
	Devinder’s mercy petition was rejected in May and his case is now moving towards the execution process. He was sentenced to death in August 2001 after being found guilty of involvement in a bomb attack in 1993 that tragically killed nine people. He was found guilty solely on the basis of an unsubstantiated confession that he made to the police and which he later retracted. He thought that it had been made under duress from the police. He was subsequently arrested under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act at New Delhi airport in January 1995. That Act has now been repealed and was criticised internationally and inside India for being incompatible with international standards for fair trials and fair arrests.
	In March 2002, the death sentence against Devinder was upheld by the Supreme Court, but the opinion was divided, with two judges in favour and the senior judge coming down in favour of acquittal. In December 2002, a review was made of the judges’ decision, again resulting in a split decision. Usually, in such circumstances, a recommendation is made that the President accept the mercy petition, but unfortunately the petition was rejected in May this year, as I have said. Now, Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar faces the death penalty.

Virendra Sharma: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I must declare an interest, in that I was born in India. I am therefore familiar with its constitutional system and traditions. My hon. Friend talked about the changes in the country, but does he also acknowledge that India’s main party and the Government have undertaken to reconsider Mr Bhullar’s case as a result of pressure from the international community? Does he agree that the Indian authorities responded to that pressure?

John McDonnell: That is exactly right. As a result of the campaign in India and the support that we and Amnesty International are giving it, there could be a breakthrough in this case that could lead to the abolition of the death penalty. There are clear concerns about the
	fairness of the trial, as well as about the eight-year delay in implementing a decision, which I believe constitutes cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment. As a friend of India—as many of us here are—I therefore appeal to the Indian Government to think again, to allow the mercy petition to go ahead and to allow this person’s death sentence to be commuted, but also to consider the issue of the death penalty itself, which I see as a continuing blemish on the Indian constitution and political system.

Barry Gardiner: I was most concerned to hear my hon. Friend say that the only evidence against Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar was the confession that he had made in police custody. The Amnesty report, “A lawless law”, describing another case, records that
	“the trial court dismissed two of the three outstanding charges against Sheikh noting that the only evidence against him was a confession made by him while in police custody which was inadmissible in court (in India, confessions made to the police are inadmissible as evidence because of fears that they may be coerced).”
	Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?

John McDonnell: Yes, that is common practice, and it is usually taken into account when considering the mercy petition. That did not happen in this instance, however. There have been four recent cases in which mercy petitions have been rejected by the President. That is a change in practice that we have witnessed over the past seven or eight years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) suggested. There is a change of political climate on this issue in India at the moment, and I think that it is to the detriment of India. On that basis, pressure needs to be mounted in India and internationally, to address not only this individual case but the whole question of the abolition of the death penalty.
	The issue of Sri Lanka and the treatment of the Tamils has also been raised with me. I want to associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) in this regard. A key issue is that, although the commission took place and various recommendations were made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, a number of them have not been implemented. For example, the simple recommendation that a list of names of those in detention should be published still has not been implemented. As a result, a number of my constituents are still anxious to find out what has happened to their families and where they are in detention.
	When people are released from detention, despite reassurances that they will be assisted with resettlement, that is not happening in every case. Some are living in very distressing circumstances, but they are getting no assistance. Furthermore, there is a continuing problem of land having been taken over, particularly by the military, and reallocated to the majority community. In that way, members of the Tamil community are being displaced yet again as a result of the Government’s actions. I would welcome our own Minister putting pressure on the Sri Lankan Government to address those issues and to get back into negotiations with the Tamil National Alliance, which has withdrawn from the current negotiations because of the Government’s intransigence. In that way, we might be able achieve an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation again.

David Nuttall: Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on securing this debate. I also want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating some of the precious time at its disposal for this afternoon’s debate.
	I want to restrict my remarks to the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. Having previously represented Bury North, my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that thousands of my constituents have a personal concern about the human rights abuses taking place in Jammu and Kashmir. Many have personal knowledge of the problems in that part of the world, while many have families still living there who regularly witness the human rights abuses that are taking place. However, it is not possible in the brief time available to do more than highlight the main points of what we all know is a long-running issue.
	The seeds of the current conflict were sown more than half a century ago in 1947, when the partition of India took place. The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, which had a Hindu ruler but a predominately Muslim population, was divided between Pakistan and India. The people of the state of Kashmir were denied any say in whether they would join Pakistan or India. They wanted what those in so many areas of the world still want today: to determine their future themselves, in a vote of all Kashmiri people. The United Nations passed resolutions to that effect in 1948, but to this day the situation continues. Kashmir remains divided by the line of control, with thousands of troops ranged against each other on both sides of that line.
	From time to time over the past 64 years the conflict has flared up and hit the world’s headlines. There have been several attempts to negotiate a peaceful settlement, but for the majority of the time the conflict has simmered away beyond the public’s gaze and attention. Sadly for the people of Kashmir, the killings and torture continue. The latest figures supplied by the Jammu Kashmir Self-Determination Movement show that there have been more than 93,000 killings since January 1989, resulting in some 22,000 women left widowed and 107,000 children orphaned. I commend the work of the Jammu Kashmir Self-Determination Movement, under its chairman Raja Najabat Hussain, for ensuring that the problems of that troubled territory are not allowed to be completely forgotten.
	As we have heard this afternoon, many of the current human rights abuses are taking place under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act of 1978. Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific director, has said of that Act:
	“The Jammu and Kashmir authorities are using PSA detentions as a revolving door to keep people they can’t or won’t convict through proper legal channels locked up and out of the way. Hundreds of people are being held each year on spurious grounds, with many exposed to higher risk of torture and other forms of ill-treatment.”
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has also expressed concerns about human rights abuses on both sides of the line of control in its human rights report, issued in May this year.
	The people of Jammu and Kashmir are long suffering and patient. It seems that there is always another problem in the world that takes precedence
	over theirs. All they want is to be given the right to determine their future by themselves. Everyone appreciates the huge challenges facing the Foreign Office, particularly in the middle east and Afghanistan. However, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will use every opportunity to advance the cause of peace in the troubled region of Jammu and Kashmir. We are fortunate to have a Minister who understands the issue, has tremendous knowledge of it and has a general personal interest in the plight of the Kashmiri people. I know that he will do all he can to ensure that one of the longest-running conflicts in the world is resolved.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak and I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing the debate. May I say that I agreed with everything he said in his excellent speech? Given the shortage of time, I shall focus my remarks on the conflict in Kashmir. My primary concern is to press the Government, above all, to use their good offices to the maximum to help bring about a just settlement in Kashmir—one that is acceptable to the people of Kashmir. I say this directly to the Minister—a man representing my local county for whom I genuinely have the greatest affection and respect. I think that he will listen to today’s debate and do his very best to move things forward.
	Thanks to the many thousands of my constituents from Kashmir, many of whom are close personal friends—some are here today, listening to our debate with great interest—I have long been familiar with the terrible sufferings of the people of Kashmir. Time and again, the appalling things happening in Kashmir have been brought to my attention. One hon. Member spoke of possibly exaggerated figures, while others have mentioned figures that, even if only half true, would be appalling. My suspicion is that the figures are accurate and that the reality might even be rather worse than has been said.
	Some 15 years ago, I had the opportunity to visit Azad Kashmir—Pakistan Kashmir. By way of Mirpur and Kotli, I visited a refugee camp. I saw how some people had suffered in Indian Kashmir: they had escaped, but having been displaced from their homes, they were still living in refugee camps. While I was a member of the all-party group on Kashmir, I visited the Foreign Office with other colleagues to press the previous Government to do all they could, first, to stop the human rights abuses and, secondly, to try to bring about movement towards a peaceful and just settlement. I say peaceful and just because a peaceful settlement is not enough; it has to be just as well. It is possible to have a peace that is a peace only because of force majeure, which would not be right. The peace must be acceptable to the people of Kashmir.
	It has been said many times by many colleagues that Britain has a special responsibility in this part of the world. It was once part of the British empire; we ruled and governed that part of the world for centuries. When we left, partition took place and a lot of blood was shed. Mistakes were made, and this might be one of the most serious of those mistakes, which lingers on as a legacy of empire in a strange way.

Steven Baker: As so often, I am surprised at the degree to which I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree, however, that one of the problems of the legacy of empire is that, although it gives us a special responsibility, it is also in many ways a curse because that very legacy is often what makes our word so very unwelcome in various countries, including in India?

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed. I am short of time, but I hope to come on to the point that Robin Cook said when he was Foreign Secretary that he wanted to embark on a process of ethical foreign policy.

Debbie Abrahams: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although we must we do everything to condemn human rights violations on either side of the line of control, we must also look to whatever means we can to ensure that we support self-determination and a lasting resolution for the people of Kashmir?

Kelvin Hopkins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and thank her for her intervention. Wherever suffering occurs, we must always support human rights; we have a record in doing so. More than one of my hon. Friends has mentioned that India is a great democracy. Indeed it is, but great democracies can also commit sins and have blood on their hands. In Britain, we consider ourselves to be a great democracy, but recent revelations about the Hola camp and what we did in Kenya, as well as about what we did to certain prisoners in Iraq suggest that even a democracy like ours can have blood on its hands. We must not excuse terrible things just because a country is a democracy.

Shabana Mahmood: Does my hon. Friend agree that no democracy—whether it be the world’s largest or not—should be afraid of a debate, either in the House, like today’s debate, or anywhere else, if that debate helps to shed some light on what is going on in another part of the world?

Kelvin Hopkins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
	I was about to make an important point about Robin Cook’s reference to an ethical foreign policy. It did not make him popular with America, but Robin Cook stood by his position and resigned over the Iraq war. That contrasts with what I believe Palmerston once said, and here I paraphrase—that in politics, there are no such things as rights and wrongs, only interests. We must raise ethics above interests sometimes in politics, as I am sure all Members do. In time, I hope that we will ensure that Pakistan and India come to a moral and ethical solution, allowing Kashmir and the Kashmiri people to determine their own future.

Robert Halfon: This is a hugely important debate. As we hope that the Arab spring heralds a new dawn, we must be clear that freedom is a right for people in other continents too. I want to focus on the regime that calls itself the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, because I believe it is neither democratic nor—I am sure that Labour Members would agree—socialist.
	The relatively normal relations Sri Lanka enjoys with the west, with little condemnation of its thin democratic credentials or genocide of Tamil civilians, have always mystified me. It is worth looking at the evidence. If we judge a democracy by its rule of law, property rights and religious tolerance, the Sri Lankan Government fails on all three. First, the Sri Lankan military is above the rule of law. As Members have said, 17,000 Tamils are still caged in barbaric camps. We still hear reports of Tamil civilians being summarily executed or disappearing, and that follows the genocide of 40,000 Tamils in the past decade. Secondly, property rights do not exist. Large areas of Tamil land and housing are still occupied by the Sri Lankan military.

Lee Scott: My hon. Friend may have seen the document from the Sri Lankan Government saying to their army that it is perfectly acceptable to take Tamil property. Does he agree that that is a disgrace?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The evidence that he has seen shows, as I am pointing out, that Sri Lanka is not a proper democracy.
	Thirdly, there is no tolerance of minorities. An estimated 180,000 Tamils are still displaced, either in transit camps or sheltering, and the names of prisoners have still not been published, so families cannot find out if their relatives are alive.
	There is a saying that one judges a man by the friends he keeps. In the same way, one can judge a Government by the allies they keep. In the past decade, Sri Lanka’s key allies have been Iran, North Korea and Colonel Gaddafi. Colonel Gaddafi gave Sri Lanka £500 million in financial assistance for so-called development projects. In return, Sri Lanka strongly opposed the no-fly zone in Libya and offered him sanctuary. Even after Gaddafi was threatening Benghazi, Sri Lanka organised mass rallies in his support, protesting against NATO intervention. We all know the story of North Korea, yet Sri Lanka was happy to sign a major weapons contract with it in 2009. We also know the story about Iran, yet Sri Lanka signed business and oil contracts with that country in defiance of international sanctions. Despite that, Sri Lanka continues to be a member of the Commonwealth and the United Nations.

Virendra Sharma: In the light of all the reports, television coverage and films shown on Channel 4, and the international condemnation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is the right time to demand that the Sri Lanka Government be expelled from the Commonwealth until they accept the international court?

Robert Halfon: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. As I will say in my concluding remarks, we should also boycott the Commonwealth leaders summit in Sri Lanka in 2013.
	As has been highlighted, the genocide of 40,000 Tamils has brought the civil war death toll to 70,000. We must make a distinction between murder and genocide—genocide is scientific, organised killing. Having taught the Sinhalese to hate the Tamil minority, the Sri Lankan Government used the Tamil Tigers, who are opposed by moderate Tamils, and whose systematic
	killing of civilians we all condemn, as the excuse for a litany of horrific events and actions. Let us take a couple of examples.
	In 2008, according to Human Rights Watch, the Sri Lankans used rockets to obliterate entire refugee camps full of women and children. In 2009, the Sri Lankan Government’s tactics evolved again. They declared a 35 sq km “safe zone” for Tamil civilians, and dropped leaflets appealing to civilians to move into the safe zone as soon as possible. Immediately after several thousand people had gathered there, near a United Nations food distribution plant, the Sri Lankan military shelled the area heavily, killing thousands of people in a few hours.
	The United Kingdom has financial leverage. We have millions of pounds’ worth of business and tourism with Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka needs the west. But we have seen what happened in “The Killing Fields”, and we must press for a UN resolution and tough economic sanctions to pressurise the Sri Lankan Government to change their ways. As I said a moment ago, we must boycott the leaders’ summit in Sri Lanka in 2013. I welcome the Canadian Prime Minister’s call for a boycott, because symbolism is incredibly important in politics.
	There are very few Tamils in my constituency, so many people may ask why I am here today, but I believe that because of my background, it is my duty to try to support nations that have suffered from genocide. That is why I have been involved in Rwanda and have been there, why I have been very involved in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and why I am supporting the Tamils.

Lee Scott: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Robert Halfon: I will not, because there is very little time. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me.
	We must be clear about the fact that Sri Lanka is a rogue nation. It has carried out genocide against the Tamil people, and we must do all that we can to stop the persecution of the Tamils once and for all.

Jeremy Corbyn: I commend the Backbench Business Committee for choosing this topic for debate. I am delighted that we have discussed mainly Kashmir and Sri Lanka. I do not want to detract from what anyone said about those subjects, and I agree with the thrust of the arguments that have been presented. I want to raise a rather different issue.
	There are 260 million people worldwide who suffer from massive human rights abuses. Such abuses have continued for centuries, indeed millennia, often unacknowledged and unchallenged. It was only with great difficulty that the issue of caste discrimination, or discrimination based on caste and descent, was raised at the Durban millennium summit, but it massively affects the people of south Asia, particularly India.
	I am the chair of the trustees of the Dalit Solidarity Network, and also an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for Dalits. The hierarchical division of a society, ascribing inherent privileges to birth, runs contrary to the United Nations’ universal declaration of human rights, article 1 of which states:
	“All human beings are… free and equal in dignity and rights.”
	The caste discrimination system divides people on the basis of their background, parents and work, and results in the greatest degree of poverty and discrimination in
	the case of India. The sadness is that the Indian constitution specifically outlaws caste discrimination, and, moreover, was written by the great Dr Ambedkar, who was himself a Dalit person. He tried to prevent the discrimination, and indeed every law in India prevents it from taking place, but it does still take place. Dalits represent one third of the world’s poor. Caste discrimination affects jobs, education, medical care and international aid, and also results in the violent subjugation of communities. Dalits have little access to public health or sanitation facilities.
	According to official Indian statistics, 13 Dalits are murdered every week, five Dalit homes or possessions are burnt every week, three Dalit women are raped every day, and a crime is committed against a Dalit person every 18 minutes. Dalits, who were formerly known as “untouchables”, are forced to do the most disgusting, dirty, dangerous, menial jobs, such as carrying human waste around in wicker baskets on their heads, picking up human faeces from the streets and railway lines, and cleaning out sewers—all the dirty jobs that no one else wants to do. When we walk around the glittering town centres of modern India, beneath them the most vile discrimination is taking place against the very poorest people, and the chances of those people’s children escaping from the system are very low indeed. They are discriminated against because of their background and their place within the identifiable Hindu caste system.
	It is right to raise this issue in Parliament, and we must encourage the British Government to ensure that their aid system recognises this discrimination and the need to address it. At present there are protected jobs in the public sector for Dalit peoples, but that does not extend to the private sector, and this arrangement has only served to fossilise the levels of unemployment in the Dalit communities. The Department for International Development has recognised this discrimination and, so far as I am aware, ensures that no aid projects perpetuate it.
	I want to draw the House’s attention to six key issues. The first two are that a significant proportion of Dalit women face verbal abuse, physical assault, sexual harassment and assault, domestic violence and rape, and that bonded labour is normal, even among Dalit children. The remaining issues are that there is forced prostitution, manual scavenging, limited political participation and non-implementation of relevant legislation.
	Our job is to speak up for the UN declaration of human rights and to draw attention to this disgraceful discrimination against so many people.

Bob Blackman: Millions of British citizens have a family origin from the Indian subcontinent, so it is right for this mother of Parliaments to debate not only human rights there, but security on the Indian subcontinent as well. First, I should add my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and for Ilford North (Mr Scott) for securing the debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to take place in the Chamber. It is, however, unfortunate that we are bracketing the bloody civil war that took place in Sri Lanka with the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. Now that the civil war has ended, there must be reconciliation, peace and an inquiry into what happened in Sri Lanka.
	I want to focus on Jammu and Kashmir. Having grown up with Indians over many years, I have debated and talked about this issue for some 25 to 30 years. We must recognise that India is the greatest democracy in the world, with 1 billion people having the opportunity to vote. It is often forgotten that there are more Muslims in India than in the whole of Pakistan and Bangladesh combined; it is a truly secular state, which offers equal opportunity to people of all religions. It has also been the subject of many terrorist atrocities, most of which, it is claimed, emanate from the state of Pakistan. Naturally therefore, the Indian Government are concerned about whether Pakistan can be trusted.
	The seeds of this mistrust lie in the history of Jammu and Kashmir. We cannot forget the origin of the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir. As other Members have said, it was this House that made the decision to allow India and Pakistan to secede and set up their own states. Jammu and Kashmir had the opportunity of joining either India or Pakistan. While it deliberated, Pakistan invaded. There is an illegally occupied area of Kashmir, therefore: the area that is Pakistani-controlled. The area that is administered by India represents what was wanted by the people of Jammu and Kashmir at the time of secession. All the atrocities that have taken place on both sides of the dividing line should be investigated, and both sides should be held to account.
	Let us compare the two states in their current forms, however. In Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, all political parties can debate and stand for elections. In fact, there was an 85% turnout for this year’s local elections in Jammu and Kashmir. All Members of this House would like to see such a turnout for a general election, let alone a local election. By contrast, in Pakistani-administered Kashmir political parties are allowed to form and agitate only provided they accept Pakistan’s right to rule Kashmir—that is not even-handed in any extreme. We must seek to even out the position and make sure that people understand that the current position is not even. We have heard far too often this afternoon about the position in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, and not enough about Pakistani-occupied Kashmir. We need to make sure that we have an even balance and that the people who are here get the opportunity to air their grievances.

Christopher Leslie: I am delighted that this House is having the opportunity to debate the full array of issues in the short time available, and I know that we have to hear at least one other speech by a Back Bencher before the wind-ups. It is important that I have the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents who are here to press their strongly held belief that there is a need for greater exposure of the human rights issues, particularly in Indian-administered Kashmir, and for greater attention to be paid to them. I accept that there are all sorts of issues between Pakistan and India, and I am not going to try to take too many sides on these things. However, I have to say to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that it is predominantly in the Indian-administered side of Kashmir that the more severe human rights issues—about detentions, curfews and disappearances, and about many of the other aspects
	highlighted in Amnesty International’s “A ‘lawless law’: Detentions under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act” report, and by the Red Cross and others—arise time and again.
	I greatly respect the Minister on these issues. I have been to see him in his office to discuss this matter, and I know that he listens carefully. He has to take a very balanced view on these questions, but I know that he would agree that it is important that the British Government try their best to raise the issue more vociferously and more passionately with Pakistan, but especially with India. What I find most distressing are the reports of this persistent abuse of the Public Safety Act on the Indian side of the Kashmir border, and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958, which is still in force in the region, and causes so many difficulties and human rights abuses. It is important that we see not only a dialling down of the tensions at the line of control, but a demilitarisation in the Kashmir region. Although the Indian Government have made some efforts, through the high-level committee and in other attempts to amend some of these awful pieces of draconian legislation, the process has been very slow and not strong enough. I therefore urge the Minister to raise these issues more vociferously and to consider the role of the European Commission and whether we can get these issues raised on an international stage. This issue is very important and I hope that he will listen to the very many voices that have been raised.

Yasmin Qureshi: I have only two minutes left, so I am going to speak very fast. I wish to refer to an article written by Dr Angana Chatterji, the associate professor of social and cultural anthropology at the California Institute of Integral Studies. Along with her cameraman and a number of other people, she went to Jammu and occupied Kashmir. Her article states:
	“Dirt, rubble, thick grass, hillside and flatland, crowded with graves. Signifiers of military and paramilitary terror, masked from the world. Constructed by institutions of state to conceal massacre. Placed next to homes, fields, schools, an army practice range. Unknown, unmarked. Over 940 graves in a segment of Baramulla district alone. Some containing more than one cadaver. Dug by locals, coerced by the police, on village land. Bodies dragged through the night, some tortured, burnt, desecrated. Circulating mythology claims these graves uniformly house ‘foreign militants’. Exhumation and identification have not occurred in most cases. When undertaken”—

Nigel Evans: Order. Sadly, we have to start the wind-ups now, and I apologise to the hon. Lady.

Stephen Twigg: I join other hon. Members in welcoming this important debate, and congratulate the hon. Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on sponsoring it and Members on both sides who have participated in it. In particular, I commend the Backbench Business Committee for providing this opportunity.
	In recent meetings with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, I have discussed the role of promoting human rights in British foreign policy. There is a very clear message about the need for consistency on human rights and that is central to the debate. The
	other theme of the debate is the importance of engaging diaspora communities in our foreign policy. It is very encouraging to see a crowded Gallery on a Thursday afternoon, reflecting the concerns in the Kashmiri and Sri Lankan communities in this country as we debate these important issues.
	We approach the subject in a year where we have seen momentous events in north Africa and the middle east. Those events have had at their hearts demands for freedom, democracy and human rights. We as a country have a responsibility to play a positive role both bilaterally and multilaterally in promoting human rights, using, for example, soft power through institutions such as the BBC World Service and the British Council. The British Council operates programmes in the Indian subcontinent, including in Sri Lanka. It is an important tool in our soft power armoury and tonight I want in particular to commend the courage of the personnel of the British Council, who are doing great work to promote human rights across the Indian subcontinent.

Julie Hilling: Does my hon. Friend agree that although good things are happening in those countries, the press here is very silent about both Kashmir and Sri Lanka and much more needs to be done not just by politicians but by the media to bring the issue up the world agenda?

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	A number of hon. Members referred to the Channel 4 film, “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”, which was broadcast in June, bringing images of atrocities committed against civilians in Sri Lanka in the concluding months of the decades-long war. The footage was truly appalling and the 25-year conflict has left Sri Lanka scarred. The military conclusion of active hostilities between the Government and the LTTE was reached in 2009, but only after mass atrocities and alleged war crimes by both sides. This leaves Sri Lanka with dual tests of accountability and reconciliation. Civilians, be they Tamil, Sinhalese or Muslim, have paid the heaviest price. For them, justice must be realised.
	Beyond the sphere of domestic Sri Lankan politics, the international community has a responsibility to secure justice. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), the former Foreign Secretary, visited Sri Lanka during the closing period of the war in 2009 to bear witness to the chaos and suffering that had been inflicted on civilians. Assessments made at that time of wrongdoing by people on both sides of the conflict have since been verified and Government forces are alleged to have been responsible for deaths by shelling the so-called safe zones, as described by a number of hon. Members. The LTTE belligerents had forced internally displaced persons to act as human shields, and those seeking to escape were simply killed.
	Justice must be sought because that is the right thing to do, but it is also right that we should pursue justice as a means of deterrent. Writing recently in The Times, Lord Ashdown made a poignant observation:
	“The point about law is that it exists not just to deliver justice after the event but also to govern behaviour beforehand”.
	Restrictions on journalists in Sri Lanka meant that this was a war without witness. Testimony brought about through the mechanism of accountability will shed light on the dark events that have scarred Sri Lanka’s recent
	history—testimony that reveals the human rights atrocities that were committed in Sri Lanka and testimony that leads to justice.
	Although the tactics of the LTTE, an organisation that has rightly been labelled as terrorist by the European Union and the United States, were abhorrent, the legitimate grievances of the Tamil people will not be resolved without a lasting and just political settlement. Can the Minister share with the House any recent discussions the Government have had with the Sri Lankan Government on their plans for reaching a political settlement and devolving power? Has the Minister made any representations about the number of people still being held in so-called rehabilitation centres? Is he satisfied that there is sufficient media freedom in Sri Lanka?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the very important issue of the death penalty and the case of Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, which he has championed for many years. I echo what he said both about Mr Bhullar’s case and more broadly on the question of the death penalty. As a fellow friend of India, I press it to abolish the death penalty. Of course, as we are having a debate on south Asia, we should similarly press Pakistan to abolish its death penalty; there are 8,000 people on death row in Pakistan today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) made the point that we have had a very big contribution to our country from the Kashmiri community that lives here. We saw that reflected in the powerful and passionate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). Hon. Members in all parts of the House have reflected the concerns of their constituents.
	In government we sought to urge both India and Pakistan to bring about a lasting resolution to the issue of Kashmir that takes into account the wishes of the people of Kashmir. I welcome some of the developments that have been referred to: the visit of the Pakistani Foreign Minister to India, improvements in cross-border trade, and talks between India and Pakistan. Will the Minister update the House on recent discussions with counterparts on the formation of a lasting political settlement that takes into account the wishes of the people of Kashmir?
	A number of human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have voiced very serious concerns about the human rights situation in both parts of Kashmir. For example, the limits to media freedom in Indian-administered Kashmir have been described by a number of hon. Members. Have the Government raised that matter with the Indian Government?
	My hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) highlighted Amnesty’s recent and very disturbing report about unmarked graves and the need for an investigation by the Indian authorities. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised the issue of irregularities and a lack of openness in elections in Pakistani-administered Kashmir, and that, too, is an important question which I encourage the Minister to raise with Pakistan in our bilateral relationship. We must continue to work both bilaterally and multilaterally with India and Pakistan, and urge all sides to seek a lasting resolution to the issue of Kashmir, which takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
	If I may finish where I started, the Arab spring has reminded us that the thirst for freedom, democracy and human rights is not western but universal. It also reminds us that in many parts of the world there are real concerns about double standards in the policies of the major powers. It is vital that we take a consistent approach to human rights, and the desire for that consistency has been reflected in this debate.

Alistair Burt: I thank all colleagues for their participation in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for his thanks to the British Council, which does such excellent work for us abroad, and for his reminding us of the increasing importance of the diaspora in British politics and the contribution that they can make, not only to debate here but, in many instances, to reconciliation and support in the communities from which they originally came.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and for Ilford North (Mr Scott) for securing the debate and to the Backbench Business Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe spoke in measured tones on a difficult subject, plainly putting to the House the views and anxieties of his constituents. I shall of course deal with Kashmir during the next few minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North spoke with passion in support of his Tamil constituents and reminded the House, as did one or two others, why we have such an obligation to speak here, without fear or favour, on the matters that concern us.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), in describing his colourful arrival in Pakistan and Kashmir, reminded us of how we are seen in many parts of the world—an honour to this House that we respect by the way in which we conduct ourselves here by dealing with difficult subjects in moderation, sometimes in tricky areas.
	The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) reminded us that, before we get too moralistic and righteous in what we say here about other countries, we should acknowledge our own human rights failings, both past and present. The fact that the House listened with respect to voices that challenged some of the more popular sentiments represented by many who are watching the debate shows that the House can listen to both sides of a complex debate. That should reassure any Government looking at the work of the House of Commons that they should not fear our debates, if transparency, accountability and justice are as close to their hearts as they are to the hearts of parliamentarians here today.
	The Government have been clear since they took office that the protection of human rights is crucial to both the values and the interests of the UK. When the Foreign Secretary set out his vision for the future of our foreign policy in a series of speeches last year, he said that those values were part of our national DNA and that they would be woven into our foreign policy decision making. We cannot achieve long-term security and prosperity for the UK unless we uphold them.
	Few parts of the world are as important to the promotion of our values and our interests as south Asia. The region's giant, India, is the world's largest democracy— vibrant, pluralistic, secular and multi-ethnic—but it has faced significant problems with domestic insurgency, communal violence and caste discrimination. Some of the toughest human rights challenges in the region are exacerbated by the dispute between India and Pakistan. The latter country, which has only recently come under civilian rule, is facing arguably the greatest existential threat from terrorism of any nation in the world. To the north and south, Nepal and Sri Lanka continue to grapple with the legacies of decades of destructive insurgency. Bangladesh is affected more than almost anywhere else by the pressures of population, poverty and climate change. The smallest country in the region, the Maldives, is the world's newest democracy.
	Despite that challenging context the UK does not shy away from engaging frankly with our partners in the region, holding Governments to account when human rights standards slip. The UK is all too familiar with the challenges of balancing personal freedoms and the rule of law, with the first duty of Government to protect their citizens. Our approach is idealism tempered with realism. We are absolutely clear about what is right and wrong and what foundations are required for truly free societies, but we also recognise the limitations on our ability to enforce change anywhere in the world. Societies progress at their own pace and the UK will continue to work with them, utilising our strengths but without arrogance, on what can be a long and difficult road to freedom, security and prosperity for all.
	Let me make a few remarks about the two main issues that have come up today—Kashmir and Sri Lanka. I fully understand the sense of frustration felt by many people in the UK about the situation in Kashmir. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) reminds me, the context of that is the years I spent both growing up and living in Bury North and representing many Kashmiri citizens and friends there.
	I have answered a number of questions tabled in the House asking for the UK to take a more active role in resolving the dispute. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) accurately described the cost over the years of the long-running problem to the communities in that area. The position of successive British Governments has consistently been that any resolution must be for India and Pakistan to agree, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. As India and Pakistan are currently making efforts to build confidence in all aspects of their relationship, I believe it is important that they be given space to determine the scope and pace of that dialogue. No matter how well intentioned, any attempts by the UK or other third parties to mediate or prescribe solutions would hinder progress.
	We continue to monitor developments In Kashmir closely, especially as reports of human rights abuses on both sides of the line of control continue. We are all aware of the violent protests that occurred in Indian-administered Kashmir during the summer of 2010. More than 100 civilians were killed and a number of security forces personnel were injured. During the unrest there were allegations of excessive use of force by security forces against protesters and allegations that protesters themselves had used violence. We are also
	aware of the large number of detentions that have since been the subject of an Amnesty International report. However, we welcome the renewed engagement by the leaders of India and Pakistan to grope towards, perhaps for the first time in a long time on a personal basis, answers to this issue. We also note that the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that human rights abuses by security forces in Kashmir would not be tolerated, and we welcomed his appointment of three interlocutors to engage with a wide range of interested parties to help to resolve the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir. We understand that those interlocutors will publish their recommendations soon.
	Our officials in our high commissions regularly discuss and regularly raise difficult issues in Kashmir with both the Indian and Pakistani Governments and with contacts in those areas. Our resources from the conflict pool also support work promoting human rights, conflict prevention and peace-building efforts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) reminded us.
	I thank hon. Friends for raising various issues relating to Sri Lanka. I assure the House that I have a regular and very frank relationship with Foreign Minister G. L. Peiris. We discuss all the significant issues that have been raised today. The allegations of war crimes and other human rights violations committed by both sides in the military conflict are of great concern to us. The UK has consistently made its position clear: Sri Lanka needs to address accountability through an independent, thorough and credible process that meets international standards and allows the people of Sri Lanka to move towards reconciliation and lasting peace and security.
	Sri Lanka has faced enormous challenges during the many years of war and its aftermath. Its Government have made important progress in some areas. We hope that all those displaced by the conflict who have returned to their home areas will be resettled in permanent accommodation in the near future. De-mining and reconstruction of key infrastructure in the north is progressing. However, just as it is fair to note progress, so it is fair to note that it has not been complete everywhere and that serious challenges remain, as I saw when I visited Jaffna earlier this year.

Steven Baker: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Alistair Burt: No. My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to speak in a moment.
	We believe that further action is required to make peace sustainable. In particular, minority political grievances need to be resolved, the mechanisms for protecting and promoting human rights need strengthening, and Sri Lanka’s communities must collectively deal with the legacy of such a long conflict. Sri Lanka has begun to address some of these issues. We hope that the Government will set out their view of a political solution to the causes of the conflict and rapidly demonstrate their commitment to resolving minority concerns sustainably. The LLRC report, which will be published in November, must set out clear steps towards accountability in respect of allegations of war crimes.
	Under international law it is the primary responsibility of the state concerned to investigate and, where necessary, prosecute credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. Experience has shown that countries that take concrete action to address conflict issues through a process of truth, justice and
	reconciliation are more likely to achieve long-term peace. By corollary, those that do not take such action will not achieve peace. We want to see Sri Lanka take those actions. While we share international concerns about the credibility of the LLRC, it is a Sri Lankan-led process and we want the Sri Lankan Government to use it to address allegations effectively and allow their communities to live and work together.
	The international community can also provide support to Sri Lanka. The comprehensive report of the UN panel of experts is most welcome, and we welcome the UN Human Rights Council’s consideration of those recommendations. We understand that this, and the disturbing Channel 4 footage, on which I made some fairly straightforward comments at the time, will be considered by the LLRC before it produces its report in November. It is a step in the right direction that we wish to encourage.
	The passion and commitment of Members who have spoken in today’s debate and the balance achieved through different Members speaking their truth on difficult areas should, I hope, persuade any constituent that we care about these issues, that they matter to the UK Government and that foreign Governments have nothing to fear from our honest inquiry springing from the values that we know they profess to share.

Steven Baker: It is an incredible honour and privilege to open and close the debate today. It has been a debate on the most exquisitely sensitive of subjects, and I think that Members on both sides of the House have at least sought to be even-handed. I know that some Members perhaps felt that the balance swung one way or another, but I think today we can all be proud of Parliament. As happens so often, I found myself agreeing with the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Luton South (Gavin Shuker). I find myself recognising that although we in this House often disagree on means, we so often agree on ends. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) made a passionate call for action—a call that I confess I did not have the courage to make. I congratulate him on making it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) reflected powerfully on his visit to Kashmir, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), in talking about his long involvement, demonstrated his passionate commitment to the issue. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mounted a passionate and even-handed defence of India. The hon. Member for Brent North was absolutely right to talk about the structure of the resolution. In the end, in this House and elsewhere we need to move away from fault and look at how prosperity, peace and progress can be delivered for people, wherever they may be. I am proud of Parliament today because we have represented all our constituents in the best possible way.

Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order to ask you, sir, to pay a tribute on our behalf to Sir Malcolm Jack, as he rises for the last time in the chair as chief Clerk of this our House of Commons? That funny triangle of you, Sir Malcolm and his colleagues is one that the public do not know much about, but I certainly pay tribute to the fact that Sir Malcolm has
	been a constant source of advice, friendly help and courteous consideration. I am sure that his successor will be every bit as good.
	Sir Malcolm is an expert on Portugal and has written a very fine book on it, which I can recommend to everybody who wants to understand mediaeval and renaissance Portuguese history—undoubtedly very helpful as he tries to steer his way through our Standing Orders and “Erskine May”. I invite you, Mr Speaker, as one of the last acts of this two-week session, to say just a word of thanks to him on behalf of all of us.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I endorse every word that he has just uttered, and I am delighted indeed to volunteer on behalf of the House the tribute sought by him.
	Malcolm Jack has served this House with dedication, passion and intellectual flair for 44 years. His is a quite outstanding track record of selfless public service in the interest of Parliament and of the country. It has been a superb record. Malcolm is a brilliant man, not given to issuing press releases to advertise the fact. He rejoices in helping the House, he has exceptional interpersonal skills and he commands the loyalty, respect and affection of literally thousands of people who work in the House and who observe the House from outside. As he retires, he will do so with the affection and goodwill of everyone who works here, and we hope that he has a long, healthy, happy and, I suspect, very industrious and enterprising retirement.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made,
	That the motions in the name of Sir George Young relating to the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England shall be treated as if they related to instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instruments be approved.—( Sir George Young .)

Hon. Members: Object.

ROYAL BRITISH LEGION (PRINCES RISBOROUGH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Vara.)

Steven Baker: It is a huge pleasure to have the opportunity to address the future of the Royal British Legion hall in Princes Risborough, which I believe is a subject only slightly less fiercely contested than those that we have dealt with this afternoon.
	I know that you, Mr Speaker, have taken an extremely close interest in the issue, including through extensive correspondence, as the hall falls within your constituency. The Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), being a resident of Princes Risborough, has taken a very close interest also, so my sense this evening, given that it turns out my regional Whip is quite interested too, is that the public have had a four-for-one offer on the subject.
	The Royal British Legion was founded in 1921 to provide help and welfare support to those who had fought in the first world war. It currently boasts 380,000 members and about 2,700 branches throughout the UK. On 9 October 2008, the new legion club was launched. It was the culmination of a £5 million project by the Royal British Legion to replace older legion clubs with a new generation of professionally run social clubs.
	Twelve months later, with nine clubs, including Princes Risborough, trading under the new legion club name, the project was declared a failure. Contributing factors included the smoking ban, changes in consumers’ drinking habits and the economic downturn, and the nine revamped venues were put up for sale. I understand that Princes Risborough is the only remaining branch that has not been closed and/or sold.
	Princes Risborough Royal British Legion hall was erected in the 1950s. Crucially, it was built and paid for by members of the local community for the benefit of the branch and its activities. The premises are on two floors, with the ground floor providing a bar and dining facilities and the first floor a large hall with stage. This facility has served the purposes of the branch and the wider community for over 50 years. Throughout that time, the club made a trading profit year on year.
	Just over two years ago, the branch was approached by New Legion Clubs, which requested that the branch transfer the lease of the premises to it. In return, NLC promised a refurbishment of the premises, a membership recruitment drive, professional management, and future security for the branch and the club facility. The branch subsequently agreed to this request, the refurbishment was undertaken, and the premises reopened. As part of the memorandum of understanding between the parties to this arrangement, it was clearly stated that
	“in the unlikely event that NLC should fail as a business, the lease would be surrendered to RBL HQ and the Branch”
	would
	“be given the option to re-open as an Original Legion Club”.
	Some 12 months after the reopening, the branch received a letter from Royal British Legion HQ stating that New Legion Clubs was a failing business and that it was to be put into administration, with all nine NLC premises, including Princes Risborough, to be sold for
	the maximum return. The branch requested that the memorandum of understanding be honoured and that it should be given the option to reopen as an original legion club or as a facility offering wider community use. The request was denied and the premises were put on the open market. However, it was agreed that the branch could continue to operate from the premises and hire out the facilities, provided that there were no alcohol sales.
	With the full support of the branch, Princes Risborough town council submitted a bid of £400,000 to purchase the property for use as a community facility, while pledging to allow the branch a permanent presence on site. RBL HQ rejected this bid. Its preferred purchaser was, I understand, a developer that intended to convert the site to residential usage. However, when the developer realised that it was not likely to obtain “change of use” planning permission, its offer was withdrawn and the property was put back on the market. The branch made a direct bid of £350,000 to purchase the property. That bid, which was supported by a professional business plan, the town council and the wider community, was rejected in favour of selling the property to a developer. That, too, fell through. The third time the property was offered for sale, there were only two bidders: W. E. Black Ltd, which bid £475,000; and the locally based Chilterns Christian Fellowship, which bid, we understand, a materially higher amount.
	I want now to concentrate on the memorandum of understanding. In his letter of 3 August to Councillor Alan Turner, Andrew Axcell, the commercial head of RBL, acknowledged that when the branch agreed to the transfer of the lease to enable use by New Legion Clubs, the briefing notes that were in use contained the statement that if NLC failed,
	“The lease for the building would be surrendered back to the Legion. The Branch would then have the option to form a Club Committee, if it felt that a club could be successfully run by its own members. The Club Committee would be able to lease the building from the Legion and open another club in the traditional manner.”
	However, Mr Axcell then went on to explain that the trustees of RBL had decided that they had legal grounds to ignore the MOU on the basis of
	“the duties which are placed on them by the trust document or by charity law”.
	In your letter of 22 August, Mr Speaker, to Chris Simpkins, the director general of RBL, you said:
	“you have simply not addressed the point that I made in the fourth paragraph of my letter of 3 August—namely, that the Princes Risborough Branch asked that the commitment in the Memorandum of Understanding...be honoured. That commitment has been dishonoured, and it should not have been. If the Royal British Legion nationally did not intend to honour the MOU, it should not have signed it. As your organisation did sign it, my constituents and I are entitled to expect that you honour it.”
	This point has not been addressed in any of the correspondence that you, Mr Speaker, have received from Mr Simpkins’s office. The building ran into difficulties only following its relationship with New Legion Clubs.
	In his letter to you, Mr Speaker, of 17 August, Chris Simpkins said that
	“charity Trustees have a statutory duty to act, at all times, in the best interests of the Charity’s beneficiaries. In so doing, Royal British Legion Trustees are bound by the terms of our Royal Charter. Whilst the importance of the contribution which the premises at Princes Risborough makes to community life is
	appreciated, this is not a consideration that Trustees are entitled to take into account when evaluating offers for the sale of the premises. Trustees are required to secure best value in the disposal taking all relevant factors into account and therefore ignoring all irrelevant factors. I appreciate how difficult this fact might be for local people to understand and accept, but there is no escape from it.”
	You, Mr Speaker, local councillors and Risborough residents feel that if the hall is sold to the Chilterns Christian Fellowship, it will cease to be a resource for the community, at least in an equivalent way. I do not know this particular fellowship, but as a Christian I would be disappointed if a church turned out to be a net loss to the community. Although such considerations are material to the decisions that might be taken by property owners, I would like the Government to respond to the objective questions of law that this matter raises in the context of localism and the big society.
	It seems to me that local attitudes to the development of a church are somewhat tangential from the law and this House in a free and open society. However, the Royal British Legion signed a memorandum of understanding that it subsequently decided not to honour. The principle of that action should be a matter of concern to this House. The hall was built and paid for by local people and the memorandum of understanding was material to the decision by local people to permit New Legion Clubs to take over the facility. Such matters of trust are fundamental to a good society and to a civilisation based on voluntary action and co-operation.
	It is very much to be regretted that the Royal British Legion appears to have fallen short of the standards of honour that are customarily associated with its members. I wish to know whether that apparent dishonour has been forced on the RBL, perhaps by the law or by bad legal advice. If the RBL could have honoured its memorandum of understanding within the law, of course it should have done so. The RBL has refused a public meeting in Risborough with the New Legion Clubs review board to discuss this matter further. I would therefore be grateful for the Government’s advice, in particular on the matters of law at hand, on the implications for the Government’s big society programme and on the Localism Bill and the community right to bid.

Andrew Stunell: I am pleased to be responding to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) not only on securing this debate, but on speaking on behalf of you, Mr Speaker, and making it very clear what the issues are. When I was first told that I would be responding to this debate, I had a moment of self-doubt, but the Secretary of State assured me that I am exactly the right person to respond. I hope that any deficiencies will be forgiven on this occasion.
	There is clear and passionate concern in the community of Princes Risborough over this issue. I have read the correspondence and heard what my hon. Friend has said. There is a strong belief that a better outcome was possible within the constraints of charity law. I hope that I can address that particular point. My hon. Friend, I think, invited me to give a Government view on a legal interpretation. I am sure he will understand that it is not possible for me to do that. Perhaps in the course of my
	remarks I can give him some pointers that he can take forward. Princes Risborough is evidently a very fortunate town, given that so many Members of this House are so strongly engaged in securing it a better future. I and the Government are sympathetic to the concerns that have been raised. I applaud the efforts of the local community and the town council to save the hall on behalf of the local branch.
	My hon. Friend has set out the rollercoaster of events that have taken place and brought us to this situation. All too often, when hon. Members bring issues before the House by way of Adjournment debate, it is a case of spilt milk. On this occasion, as well, I have to say that it is not possible for the Government to come along and put the milk back into the bottle. Of course, the underlying problem is that, as a charity, the Royal British Legion is required by charity law to act in the best interests of the charity and obtain the best price it can when disposing of land, and it would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene and cut across that process. I note, however, that it would have been lawful for the Royal British Legion to transfer the property to the local branch provided that the local branch was set up as a charity and had the same objectives, broadly speaking, as the legion.
	That brings us to one of the crucial points that has been in dispute between the legion and those who support the efforts of Princes Risborough’s residents. Where land or property is held in trust for charitable purposes, special rules apply under charity law once charity trustees decide to sell. In general, the charity must obtain professional advice and seek the best price it can get. That approach is designed to maximise the funds that can then be reapplied to the charity’s purposes in other ways. Charity trustees cannot sell land or property at less than best price unless to another charity with compatible charitable purposes or where the land is to be leased to a beneficiary of the charity.
	A charity’s trustees are ultimately responsible for running the charity. Their freedom and independence to act in the best interests of the charity and its beneficiaries within the law and the terms of the charity’s governing document is a fundamental principle of charity law. It is the trustees’ decision whether to dispose of land at below best price to another charity with compatible charitable purposes or whether to sell it on the open market for the best possible price and use the funds generated to further the charity’s purposes in other ways. I suggest that the crucial point is the option that the Royal British Legion had to take the former course rather than the latter.
	A review of the Charities Act 2006 is due to begin shortly. That Act requires the Government to carry out a review of its working every five years and to report to Parliament, and the review will consider the rules around the disposal of charity land. It is expected to take between six and nine months and it will report to Parliament. In all probability, there will be an announcement about that next month.
	It is worth asking what the rules are and which issues my hon. Friend might want to consider raising during that review. Existing charity law dictates that trustees must always act in the best interests of their charity. How they demonstrate that is usually left to their discretion,
	but when it comes to selling, leasing or transferring their charity’s land, the law sets out clear requirements to ensure that those important transactions are properly managed in the charity’s interests and that the trustees obtain the best price that is reasonable in the circumstances.
	In most cases, the law enables trustees to proceed without approaching the Charity Commission for specific approval before they carry out the transaction. Trustees must think carefully before disposing of valuable assets of the charity. They might be useful in the future and therefore the trustees must be satisfied that any disposal would be in the best long-term interests of the charity. They should consider whether it would be better to retain the land for longer and perhaps continue to take any income from it so as to earn more from it later; to consider continuing to use it for the benefit of the charity in spite of the money that could be realised; or, as I just said, to decide to transfer it to another, parallel charity.
	In most cases, charities can undertake a disposal of land without the need for prior authority from the Charity Commission. In cases where the trustees have decided that it is in the charity’s best interests to dispose of the land, the trustees must ensure that they have obtained and considered a written report from a qualified surveyor, advertised the disposal following advice from the surveyor and satisfied themselves that the proposed terms are the best that can be reasonably obtained in the circumstances of the disposal. Those requirements were referred to in the correspondence from the representative of the Royal British Legion that my hon. Friend read into the record a few minutes ago.
	This is not the first case in recent years where a charity has decided to sell a property against the wishes of the local community. In many cases—this is one—the local community might want to take over the assets at below best price for continuing charitable purposes. The important point is that that is not possible unless they are similar charitable purposes to those of the selling charity. Disposal at below best price is permitted only where the property will continue to be used for charitable purposes that fall within the disposing charity’s purposes. In some cases, even where the local community wants to use the property for the same charitable purposes—this might well be such an example—the trustees may decide that selling at below best price would still not be in the charity’s best interests and may proceed to sell the property on the open market. Ultimately, that is a decision for the trustees of the charity, having sought suitable professional advice.
	As I said, the Charities Act requires the Minister for the Cabinet Office to appoint a person to review that Act within five years of its enactment. The review is expected to be broad in scope and will consider the charity law provisions regulating land transactions. The review is expected to take between six and nine months and must report to Parliament on its conclusion. It is unlikely that the review will recommend changes that would undermine the fundamental principles of obtaining best price for disposals to recycle funds to the specific charitable purposes, except where, as I have said, the charity has compatible purposes. It is also unlikely that there would be a change reducing the freedom and independence of charity trustees to make decisions, with professional advice where appropriate, that are in
	the charity’s best interests, within the law and the terms of the charity’s governing document.
	I know that my hon. Friend and you, Mr Speaker, are articulate, persistent and ingenious, and I would be disappointed if hon. Friends and Members were not able to draw from this incident the strength and determination to make a submission to that review of charity law—perhaps one that uses this case as an object lesson and draws attention to how important it is that a charity, when reconfiguring its assets, has regard to the opportunities for other charities in the locality with a common purpose to continue to provide a charitable service using those assets.
	Perhaps also a representation could draw attention to the provisions of the Localism Bill—by then it might be an Act—which my hon. Friend drew attention to and asked me to comment on. When the Localism Bill becomes an Act, it will introduce a community right to buy. I want to make it clear that it will not be an absolute right to buy, but there will be a window of opportunity for community organisations—the town council, for example—to make a bid for community assets. The Government are well aware that the most common problem that communities face when trying to save a building or amenity is a lack of time and not being given enough notice to do anything about the issue.
	Over the past decade, communities have been losing local amenities and buildings of great importance to them, such as village shops, the local pub or community centres. The Localism Bill is introducing measures that will provide people and community organisations with a fair chance to bid to take over assets and facilities that are important to them. Any submission made in pursuance of the review of the Charities Act might want to draw particular attention to the community right to buy, and to consider whether it might be appropriate to draw lessons from this experience.
	It is certainly the Government’s intention that it will be much easier for local communities to save important community assets, enabling them to tackle real social need and build up resources and employment in their neighbourhood in more innovative, enterprising and cost-effective ways. There is no doubt that, under the provisions in the Bill, the community and the town council in Princes Risborough would be able to nominate the British Legion hall as an asset of community value, and when the British Legion decides to put the hall up for sale, the town council and the community would have additional time to raise additional funds and develop a robust business case.
	I realise that this issue has created a great deal of difficulty and tension in the community in Princes Risborough, but I want to pick up on one of my hon. Friend’s points about what might happen, should the premises be transferred to the Chilterns Christian Fellowship. Both he and I hope that the fellowship would play a full and active part in supporting the community of Princes Risborough and making the facilities available. I understand that it has indicated that it would be willing to support the activities of the local branch, possibly including hosting some of its activities. Speaking in personal capacity, I would welcome that, and I want to encourage constructive dialogue between all parties to ensure a satisfactory outcome.
	As I said earlier, there is no way that I, on behalf of the Government, can put the milk back into the bottle, but I hope that I have done something to assure the House that there will be a better route in future, and that there are still positive outcomes to be had in Princes Risborough.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.